# Here are some crazy Canon EOS R1 specifications [CR0]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 4, 2021)

> Well, here we have the first specifications for the Canon EOS R1 (the flagship RF mount camera). Things are slow at the moment, so why the heck not?
> *Please note the [CR0] rating*
> Canon EOS R1 Specifications: (Rumored)
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## sfericean (Mar 4, 2021)

$8500!!?? Guess I'll be using my cardboard pin hole camera from middle school for a few years longer.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Mar 4, 2021)

CR0

So you're saying there's a chance.


----------



## csibra (Mar 4, 2021)

The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 4, 2021)

csibra said:


> The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.


----------



## prodorshak (Mar 4, 2021)

This looks like a wish list..of people who has kidneys left to sell!


----------



## unfocused (Mar 4, 2021)

Trolls will be trolls. Somebody is having fun with these specs. The $8,500 price tag is the most credible thing about the rumor and that's not saying much.


----------



## tcphoto (Mar 4, 2021)

It will literally be the last camera you buy, you'll be paying it off till you fall over dead and then come after your family for the balance.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2021)

"Don't worry about the price, how low do you want your monthly payments to be?"


----------



## Refraction (Mar 4, 2021)

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 4, 2021)

85mp? (taking a second look at the calendar) Aren't you a few weeks early?

I suppose you could get that much with a bit of pixel shifting, but at 20 fps it'd still require heaving lifting.


----------



## amorse (Mar 4, 2021)

That sounds like a hodgepodge of rumours and wishes for several cameras. I'm not sure I'd get my hopes up for that one.


----------



## alejandrobox (Mar 4, 2021)

I think this post attacks your credibility as a reliable source...


----------



## SteveC (Mar 4, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> "Don't worry about the price, how low do you want your monthly payments to be?"



The salesman who pulls that line on me gets to see me walk out the door.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 4, 2021)

sfericean said:


> $8500!!?? Guess I'll be using my cardboard pin hole camera from middle school for a few years longer.


Actually...for a flagship, this price likely makes sense.
Especially if you consider that Fuji is soon releasing a 100MP digital Medium Format camera, the gfx100S for about $6500 or so.

A Canon flagship if really near that performance with a full frame 85MP sensor and shooting speed....yeah, I can see that price point.

C


----------



## ildyria (Mar 4, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Actually...for a flagship, this price likely makes sense.
> Especially if you consider that Fuji is soon releasing a 100MP digital Medium Format camera, the gfx100S for about $6500 or so.
> 
> A Canon flagship if really near that performance with a full frame 85MP sensor and shooting speed....yeah, I can see that price point.
> ...


For those specs, I would see it more in the 10k to be honest.


----------



## Red Dog (Mar 4, 2021)

This is no toy, its primary market is the pro sports/media outlets primarily so I'd expect it to be a reasonably hefty price like the 1dx mkiii was, although $8500 might be a bit out of reach for many in the current climate. In terms of specs it may well increase the MP to 40 but I see no reason why anyone would want or needs more than 20 fps, particularly in media work. I know a few media colleagues who have experimented with using the R5/R6 for sports and whilst they do work well, they struggle with so many frames to scroll through to tag images for editing. Very easy to hold the shutter button down when its completely silent and then realise you've taken 50 pics in a few short bursts. When you're working under time pressures in the field you don't need this. Be interesting to see what eventually appears, but I'd expect many of the increases in MP and FPS to be incremental and not mindblowing.


----------



## snapshot (Mar 4, 2021)

for me, tracking and stopping motion without a flash is a big deal. i have been very happy with the resolution of the 5d4 and would rather spend bandwidth on frames per second rather than pixels per frame.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.


If that global shutter allows for flash sync at high speeds (without HSS, HS, or ND filters) that’s always been my top wish. For those of you who mix flash exposure with daylight on location you get it. Please find out more about this.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 4, 2021)

seriously .. why isn't there a CR (-1) rating?


----------



## John Wilde (Mar 4, 2021)

Positive-dumb rumors like this are better than the negative-dumb rumors that Nikon is subjected to.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 4, 2021)

prodorshak said:


> This looks like a wish list..of people who has kidneys left to sell!


I loan books to whomever gives one of his kidneys or first born as collateral. I'm done teaching the kids how to make kidney pie, its time to buy an R1.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Mar 4, 2021)

Ferrari SF90 Stradale will reincarnate into the camera body.


----------



## gavinz (Mar 4, 2021)

Seems like a dream list. I can see a 4k sensor with global shutter, 20fps ish and quad pixel AF would be killer enough. I think some people forget the 1 series has a specific target market in mind and is not the kitchen sink of features.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2021)

Moving to Arkansas next weekend. Already considering a second mortgage. 

But seriously, I never would have considered an R1, but if this is true (not likely), then I might. My shooting is going to start including birds and other wildlife. However, bet the R5 would handle all that.


----------



## Rumourhasit (Mar 4, 2021)

Some of these specs are possibly. They are within the limits of the Digic X, if canon have cracked the global shutter anything is possible


----------



## GreenViper (Mar 4, 2021)

A 21MP quad-pixel sensor would have 84MP pixels of course which could in theory have a special mode that could record each sub-pixel separately. And it would seem a waste of a quad pixel set up if you didn't have a dual or quad gain set up to improve DR. So whilst there are elements that could be true but it does have the smell of a wild optimist/attention-seeker! Mind you some of R5 rumours sounded pretty wild at the start
I guess there will be people who could use a camera that switched 21/85MP, I can't see 85MP being of particular interest to the majority of the professional market though


----------



## shawnc (Mar 4, 2021)

Divide by 2 to get a reasonable idea of the final specs, except the price, then divide by about 1.4.


----------



## davidhfe (Mar 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.



Like a true global shutter and not a stacked or "ultra fast readout" thing?


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 4, 2021)

jhpeterson said:


> 85mp? (taking a second look at the calendar) Aren't you a few weeks early?
> 
> I suppose you could get that much with a bit of pixel shifting, but at 20 fps it'd still require heaving lifting.


85mp for the 12k raw video.


----------



## Dearl4 (Mar 4, 2021)

Unless it's a medium format sensor, I'm not bothering.
#canonisdoomed


----------



## PilslF (Mar 4, 2021)

Hmm, if there is any real chance of this maybe the 80+ mp is a Pixel shift mode.
At some point with these high frame rates, there needs to be AI added into DPP, that knows if the image is in focus, eyes open, etc.
Then some of this can be better utilized, since we are running in 10-zillion + bursts
I have been enjoying the idea of using 8K in the R5, shooting a clip, then pulling a frame
If we get to 8K/60P or better....


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 4, 2021)

csibra said:


> The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


I agree. Also, if they really do have quad pixel AF, they don't need to go high resolution, as they can (and should) interpolate using the sub-pixels, so the camera can either be a ~24MP Bayer array (by combining the quad AF sensels similar to how they currently combine the dual pixel sensels), OR they can leave them uncombined and effectively have a CFA array that looks like:

RRGG
RRGG
GGBB
GGBB

The ~6000x4000 pixel bayer array would then effectively be ~12000x8000 pixels, R, G, and B quad sitting under one color filter color and micro-lens. It would effectively have ~96MP, or ~24MP depending on if you combined the quad pixels in camera or not. That would be pretty awesome.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2021)

Dearl4 said:


> Unless it's a medium format sensor, I'm not bothering.
> #canonisdoomed


That would probably require different lenses.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 4, 2021)

Is the pixel density not referring to the dual/quad pixel tech? Total pixels instead of usable pixels.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 5, 2021)

GreenViper said:


> A 21MP quad-pixel sensor would have 84MP pixels of course which could in theory have a special mode that could record each sub-pixel separately. And it would seem a waste of a quad pixel set up if you didn't have a dual or quad gain set up to improve DR. So whilst there are elements that could be true but it does have the smell of a wild optimist/attention-seeker! Mind you some of R5 rumours sounded pretty wild at the start
> I guess there will be people who could use a camera that switched 21/85MP, I can't see 85MP being of particular interest to the majority of the professional market though


But, if you could have the OPTIONs of using the higher when you wanted it, along with the lower when you needed it...why not have the best of both worlds?

I can't imagine not wanting options....


But then again...some people still bitch about having video, so....


cayenne


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 5, 2021)

questionsabouthigh said:


> 85mp for the 12k raw video.


Nah, would need to be a 100mp 3:2 sensor to provide 12k (12288 pixels on the long side @ 16:9). It would mean 80mp frame grabs if that was the case though. Not too shabby though at 30fps 
85mp would be ~11300x7500 (3:2) so about 11k. I would have assumed that a 12k sensor would be needed to line skip to 8/4k resolutions.
85mp would of course satisfy the high res body lovers and the 1D/R1 speed junkies but maybe not the price to satisfy both target markets.
I still believe that the R1 will be 45mp and record 8k raw


----------



## Aussie shooter (Mar 5, 2021)

Could be a case of the reality is hidden somewhere inside a bunch of specs that are true but need context to provide the full picture. As has been said. A quad pixel sensor of 21/84mp(depending on how those pixels are read) certainly sounds plausible for those of us with limited knowledge of how these things work. If Canon are the first to bring a global shutter to the market however then........whooaahhh!!!!! That will surprise the world.


----------



## Togorus (Mar 5, 2021)

Wish for more than you can get, and you will get some of it.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'm all in!!!!


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 5, 2021)

Budget for a new computer system as well.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 5, 2021)

If the Sony A1 is worth $6500 (and in my book it isn't) the this is easily worth $8500.


----------



## AquaVideo (Mar 5, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Could be a case of the reality is hidden somewhere inside a bunch of specs that are true but need context to provide the full picture. As has been said. A quad pixel sensor of 21/84mp(depending on how those pixels are read) certainly sounds plausible for those of us with limited knowledge of how these things work. If Canon are the first to bring a global shutter to the market however then........whooaahhh!!!!! That will surprise the world.


Red Komodo has 6K global shutter already with good dynamic range so definitely seems doable - if they can do it Canon should be able also.


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2021)

I think this camera will exist but in a few years say 2033 ?  

So the only inaccuracy is the lack of Mk number.

Now if it said: R1 MkIV wouldn't you believe it?


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2021)

On another thought if the rumor contained information about video capabilities too we would know that the source could be Harry


----------



## gmon750 (Mar 5, 2021)

The pricing for the R5 was not too far away from the equivalent 5D. I would expect the R1 to be in the same ballpark as the 1DX. I'm not buying the pricing. It seems too high. I few hundred dollars maybe, but not thousands.

If it were priced similar to the 1DX, even I would consider it.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 5, 2021)

Just catching my breath from laughing so hard at these.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

GreenViper said:


> A 21MP quad-pixel sensor would have 84MP pixels of course which could in theory have a special mode that could record each sub-pixel separately. And it would seem a waste of a quad pixel set up if you didn't have a dual or quad gain set up to improve DR. So whilst there are elements that could be true but it does have the smell of a wild optimist/attention-seeker! Mind you some of R5 rumours sounded pretty wild at the start
> I guess there will be people who could use a camera that switched 21/85MP, I can't see 85MP being of particular interest to the majority of the professional market though


That makes no sense, maybe it is going to be another terminology rabbit hole but a 21mp sensor is a 21mp sensor. Canon dual ‘pixel’ sensors have two photodiodes per pixel, the R5 has 47 million pixels and 94million photodiodes. It is not a 94mp camera.

If a sensor had quad pixel AF, which makes a lot of sense for orientation sensitivity, then it would have Y number of pixels and Y x 4 number of photodiodes.


----------



## MadisonMike (Mar 5, 2021)

You got me, I thought I was reading Sony Alpha Rumors. No way this is legit. Maybe in a few years we may see some of those specs. The cameras out now are astounding and so fun to shoot compared to what was available not very long ago so those specs will be a reality sooner than people imagine.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That makes no sense, maybe it is going to be another terminology rabbit hole but a 21mp sensor is a 21mp sensor. Canon dual ‘pixel’ sensors have two photodiodes per pixel, the R5 has 47 million pixels and 94million photodiodes. It is not a 94mp camera.
> 
> If a sensor had quad pixel AF, which makes a lot of sense for orientation sensitivity, then it would have Y number of pixels and Y x 4 number of photodiodes.


Exactly my thoughts. Divide the MP by 4 due to someone not understanding quad pixel and you get the sort of resolution we might expect...


----------



## HenWin (Mar 5, 2021)

Considering what is offered, even if some of it isn't going to happen, so I'm not sure it's outta the ball park. I'm not a pro (and I don't play one on TV, either) so personally, I'd prefer something more oriented towards stills shooting. I don't need the video modes at all except at an elementary (my dear Watson) level. I'd also like to see one w/ built in GPS like my 5D4 has.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 5, 2021)

But with these specs, it will be overheating in 5-7 minutes.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Mar 5, 2021)

The one thing I’m hoping is not true is the OLED screen. Burn in sucks! Nothing wrong with a high quality LCD for this application


----------



## addola (Mar 5, 2021)

20 fps @ 85 MP sounds unbelievable, but so did "20fps @ 45" (Canon R5) and "30fps @ 50 MP" (Sony A1) just a year ago. Canon might have been working on newer sensors with fast readout, and they might even have a new DIGIC X sensor, or maybe using dual processors. 

I personally think the global shutter is far-fetched, but would be revolutionary for flash photography.


----------



## John MacLean Photography (Mar 5, 2021)

How about ISO 3 for people that want to shoot long exposures. I can’t understand why camera makers can’t incorporate this?


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Fact is 50MP at 15fps RAW is all any sports photographer would ever need even for the most extreme sports. Want smaller files then reduce them while shooting. In my opinion anything above 15fps is overkill.

Raising the resolution for pro-sports will be a sea change. One that we've been waiting for.

Canon will make more money on glass by far as we swap out 70-200, 200, 300, 400, 600 and 200-400's. 

Now note each kit requires 2-3 bodies and a full set of big whites.

If Canon makes the R1 with equal resolution to the A1, they will make a fortune!

I would think $8K to 10K based on the IQ. If not 50MP no way we're buying the bodies or all new glass kits.


----------



## ladigitaltech (Mar 5, 2021)

Hey people I work as a DIT and I just got off a Chanel jewelry shoot and the director/photographer from Paris was shooting here in LA on an iphone 12 meaning he was working on 3 shoots at the same time and the assistants had an iphone setup with a laptop with his face on it. In Tokyo, Paris, and LA this camera will not be needed in a couple of years at least for advertising, they won't need me either as the shots were shot raw and sent to NY or Paris.


----------



## AEWest (Mar 5, 2021)

The most important question: will it have a flippy screen?


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 5, 2021)

And the R7 will literally freeze the bird for you so you can walk up and take a photo with a short lens at 1/30 second.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 5, 2021)

AquaVideo said:


> Red Komodo has 6K global shutter already with good dynamic range so definitely seems doable - if they can do it Canon should be able also.


yes, but video DR and stills photography DR are two different things.. they can play a little fast and loose with video. much more problematic with stills.

But .. a stills sensor, global shutter with 1 more EV than the R5 sensor? and twice as fast as the R5 sensor. it's only doable if it's a stacked sensor.

I wrote up my thoughts on it.. TLDR; this rumor came out 4 weeks early


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

addola said:


> I personally think the global shutter is far-fetched, but would be revolutionary for flash photography.


Not until flash is revolutionized. Flash durations for decent power at affordable prices are just not there at this point.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 5, 2021)

Wow those are perhaps the most amazing specs I’ve yet to see on any camera. If this thing could do 85MP with global shutter and 15 stops of usable dynamic range... I’d buy it at preorder. But I’m thinking it’s sounding too good to be true.


----------



## Athomp2002 (Mar 5, 2021)

This would actually explain why Sony came out with their A1 so quickly. If they know something like this is coming out, they’d want to be first on the market (like they did with the A7R4, right before the Canon R5 came out). This also shows the benefits of creating your own sensors! Nikon should start doing that again soon!


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 5, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Could be a case of the reality is hidden somewhere inside a bunch of specs that are true but need context to provide the full picture. As has been said. A quad pixel sensor of 21/84mp(depending on how those pixels are read) certainly sounds plausible for those of us with limited knowledge of how these things work. If Canon are the first to bring a global shutter to the market however then........whooaahhh!!!!! That will surprise the world.


I am annoyed by the negative comments in some forums that Canon is worse than Sony because it doesn't have a stacked sensor. I am fine to ignore the technology and look at the result eg overall read speed/rolling shutter. I don't care how you do it at the end of the day but a global shutter would be cool tech.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 5, 2021)

AEWest said:


> The most important question: will it have a flippy screen?


This is an interesting question especially in the 1D form factor. I would have to say that it should have a flippy screen for video and difficult angle shooting (astro), closed in to protect it and facing out would be the same as the current 1D.
What would be really interesting is it they increased the size of the panel substantially. This would play into the new menu rumour allowing cascading menus but still large enough font to read from a distance.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 5, 2021)

AquaVideo said:


> Red Komodo has 6K global shutter already with good dynamic range so definitely seems doable - if they can do it Canon should be able also.


The Red Komodo manages around 12 stops. Not bad for a global shutter, but nowhere near their silly 16 plus stops marketing hype claims.

If Canon can manage better than 14 usable stops, this camera would be the new benchmark.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> This is an interesting question especially in the 1D form factor. I would have to say that it should have a flippy screen for video and difficult angle shooting (astro), closed in to protect it and facing out would be the same as the current 1D.
> What would be really interesting is it they increased the size of the panel substantially. This would play into the new menu rumour allowing cascading menus but still large enough font to read from a distance.


The only way to do a flip screen on a 1-series body would be to have a tilt flip like Panasonic have on the S1H.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 5, 2021)

ladigitaltech said:


> Hey people I work as a DIT and I just got off a Chanel jewelry shoot and the director/photographer from Paris was shooting here in LA on an iphone 12 meaning he was working on 3 shoots at the same time and the assistants had an iphone setup with a laptop with his face on it. In Tokyo, Paris, and LA this camera will not be needed in a couple of years at least for advertising, they won't need me either as the shots were shot raw and sent to NY or Paris.


Sometimes "need" ain't got nothing to do with it. Professionals are a small part of the market. Nobody needs a Bugatti either.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 5, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I agree. Also, if they really do have quad pixel AF, they don't need to go high resolution, as they can (and should) interpolate using the sub-pixels, so the camera can either be a ~24MP Bayer array (by combining the quad AF sensels similar to how they currently combine the dual pixel sensels), OR they can leave them uncombined and effectively have a CFA array that looks like:
> 
> RRGG
> RRGG
> ...


I could see their marketing department declaring their 21MP QP sensor is really a 84 MP sensor as long as they have software to interpolate the quad-Bayer array (as shown in this post) into what they can claim to be 16 full color pixels.

The substantially improved back LCD and EVF would be compelling, as is the rest of it. If they also really have a 84MP conventional Bayer array where each pixel element is a quad pixel with QP AF, then it'd justify the high price for the body for sure and be well received by those professionals and well-to-do prosumers that can afford it. It would also keep the R5 & R6 selling like hot cakes to all the rest who can't quite afford the higher price. It would be a good vertical marketing strategy for maximizing income in these difficult times.


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 5, 2021)

Does it make phone calls?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Mar 5, 2021)

AquaVideo said:


> Red Komodo has 6K global shutter already with good dynamic range so definitely seems doable - if they can do it Canon should be able also.


True. I probably should have said a global shutter in a semi affordable body. The Komodo is ridiculously expensive isnt it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> True. I probably should have said a global shutter in a semi affordable body. The Komodo is ridiculously expensive isnt it?


No not really, $6,000. But when a fancy color option is $1,000 it kind of shows who the real market is.


----------



## ladigitaltech (Mar 5, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sometimes "need" ain't got nothing to do with it. Professionals are a small part of the market. Nobody needs a Bugatti either.


I understand that, but just like a lot of things once people get used to it why would anyone buy an expensive camera if you could get it on the phone you carry... just like point and shoot that was consumer only and now it's gone... this was a video shoot too and in a few years the Alexa we had might be replaced as well... first time I've seen a shoot like this but it won't be the last.


----------



## ladigitaltech (Mar 5, 2021)

Last thing, I came from Hasselblads and I don't see people buying them either... Now it's DSLR/mirror and it might be less than that very soon.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Mar 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No not really, $6,000. But when a fancy color option is $1,000 it kind of shows who the real market is.


Ok. There you go. I thought they were far more than that. I stand corrected. In that case what is holding the rest back then?


----------



## eosbob (Mar 5, 2021)

So now we are paying $100 a MP. If that's the case then the 1DX Mark III should be $2010.00, right?


----------



## boyluck04 (Mar 5, 2021)

I'm only interest EOS RP next gen. Hope it will release in this year


----------



## masterpix (Mar 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I would say that 40MP global shutter will be more than enough. The 80MP will be for the R5s. I like the dynamic range, but the high ISO is not a real issue. And the price.. ow.. that hurts


----------



## terrellcwoods (Mar 5, 2021)

Out of everything, I bet that price is pretty close


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 5, 2021)

Why not?
If the 85 MPix are the quad pixels counted as 4 with the goal to have a 21 MPix sensor with vertical and horizontal AF sensitivity the specs make sense. Maybe Canon lifted lots of processing onto the sensor global shutter might be possible. Maybe resulting in much less noise - higher DR - or with some dual ISO concept using the "Quads" efficiently.
Only the Iso seems to have one zero to much - at above 50% quantum efficiency of todays sensors there is no longer lots of headroom for improvements.
And the 1280 nit value for brightness seems a little bit too exact - for specs which could't be controlled better then ~10%, 1200 or 1300 would be precise enough. Maybe some resolution specs were mingled with brightness specs.


----------



## croviking (Mar 5, 2021)

I doubt 85MP will be in R1, but if such a sensor is indeed being developed, is there an R5 DSR coming up?

Add that to the list with a CR (-1) rating.

[Edit] all that talk about quad-pixel representation of roughly a 21MP sensor does make sense.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 5, 2021)

I think for $ 8500 Canon can spend an integrated cup holder - such a service for a hard working photographer would nicely fit to one the world's most ethical companies


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 5, 2021)

Just another idea to expand this rumors list (and let it go viral on the net): the R1 will come with an on-board micro-camera-quadcopter that will be automatically activated if one wants to shoot a 360° 3D pano. Eat this, Sony fanboys.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 5, 2021)

DBounce said:


> The only way to do a flip screen on a 1-series body would be to have a tilt flip like Panasonic have on the S1H.


maybe an app for a VR headset would be more flexible? You could even shoot right behind your back and see what you are framing.


----------



## Bahrd (Mar 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not until flash is revolutionized.


Does the EL-1's specification hint at such a possibility?


----------



## Jim Corbett (Mar 5, 2021)

It'll most likely be 36-40 mpx, stacked CMOS, no LPF(hopefully), 30 fps 12bit compressed, 20 fps lossless 14bit - just like the Sony a1.
The biggest thing/hope for me is the AF in video getting as good as the Photo AF, so again, hopefully, the QP will answer that prayer
85mpx GS in 10 years? Maybe. As of now is a total BS.


----------



## grilled_rooster (Mar 5, 2021)

ISO range is BS. 
The rest? Maybe real. But i don't care. Way over my budget.


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 5, 2021)

I'm definitely getting one , around 2032!


----------



## wockawocka (Mar 5, 2021)

85mp - That'll kill the target market for a 1 series and won't be happening.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


This would be superb Canon and cement you (still) as being No 1 in camera world and notch above Sony's A1, hopefully Nikon will produce a great Z8 / Z9 camera also.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 5, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Ok. There you go. I thought they were far more than that. I stand corrected. In that case what is holding the rest back then?


To be fair, the Komodo is an S35 sensor, not full frame.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 5, 2021)

I’m betting that 40MP is the new standard. You need close to that for 8K with the 16:9 crop. I can’t image 85MP on a 1 series body. But I’ll take it. Can’t wait for the real leaks to begin.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 5, 2021)

Athomp2002 said:


> This would actually explain why Sony came out with their A1 so quickly. If they know something like this is coming out, they’d want to be first on the market (like they did with the A7R4, right before the Canon R5 came out). This also shows the benefits of creating your own sensors! Nikon should start doing that again soon!


How does that explain anything? Unless you have documentation or quotes from Sony decision makers, causation is very difficult to prove. The A7r4 was announced ten or more months before the R5. "I suspect companies always want to be first on the market." More than likely--and just as good an explanation--Sony had produced a workable high MP sensor and wanted to take the high-MP crown from Nikon (remember, Nikon held the crown for awhile at 45.7MP). Similarly with the A1. The A1 is the camera the A9II should have been (my opinion), but the 50MP stacked sensor just wasn't ready. Now it's ready, so the A1 is released. Thus, rather than a "quick" release, the A1 is actually 15-16 months late. 

Do I have inside knowledge to support this hypothesis? No, but my explanation is at least as good as yours and far more compelling.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 5, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I agree. Also, if they really do have quad pixel AF, they don't need to go high resolution, as they can (and should) interpolate using the sub-pixels, so the camera can either be a ~24MP Bayer array (by combining the quad AF sensels similar to how they currently combine the dual pixel sensels), OR they can leave them uncombined and effectively have a CFA array that looks like:
> 
> RRGG
> RRGG
> ...


Why they never did it with dual pixel?


----------



## Bonich (Mar 5, 2021)

20MP with 20 FPS & global shutter & 80MP with slower shooting speed is very real for a Canon 1D.
4 pixel to 1 readout in fast modes and for ultra dark scenario.

This looks like the only logical path in out high MP times, all boxes checked!


----------



## Athomp2002 (Mar 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does that explain anything? Unless you have documentation or quotes from Sony decision makers, causation is very difficult to prove. The A7r4 was announced ten or more months before the R5. "I suspect companies always want to be first on the market." More than likely--and just as good an explanation--Sony had produced a workable high MP sensor and wanted to take the high-MP crown from Nikon (remember, Nikon held the crown for awhile at 45.7MP). Similarly with the A1. The A1 is the camera the A9II should have been (my opinion), but the 50MP stacked sensor just wasn't ready. Now it's ready, so the A1 is released. Thus, rather than a "quick" release, the A1 is actually 15-16 months late.
> 
> Do I have inside knowledge to support this hypothesis? No, but my explanation is at least as good as yours and far more compelling.


Ok


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

boyluck04 said:


> I'm only interest EOS RP next gen. Hope it will release in this year


It has been made clear with Canon C Suite interviews that the RP and R were placeholder models and will be phased out. The rest of the line will be numbered R models following in suit with the 1, 5, 7 lines


----------



## Nigel95 (Mar 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does that explain anything? Unless you have documentation or quotes from Sony decision makers, causation is very difficult to prove. The A7r4 was announced ten or more months before the R5. "I suspect companies always want to be first on the market." More than likely--and just as good an explanation--Sony had produced a workable high MP sensor and wanted to take the high-MP crown from Nikon (remember, Nikon held the crown for awhile at 45.7MP). Similarly with the A1. The A1 is the camera the A9II should have been (my opinion), but the 50MP stacked sensor just wasn't ready. Now it's ready, so the A1 is released. Thus, rather than a "quick" release, the A1 is actually 15-16 months late.
> 
> Do I have inside knowledge to support this hypothesis? No, but my explanation is at least as good as yours and far more compelling.


It amuses me how common this fallacy is (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Our brain most of the time quickly wants to jump to conclusions. Takes a lot of effort and probably not possible (or favourable) at all to think critical all the time. Our brain is great at making up stories based on the info that is available at that moment in our brain.

It is fascinating to me what we can achieve with our brain yet still very flawed in some ways.


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Approx: 85MP global shutter CMOS imaging sensor
> 15.5 EV+ Dynamic Range
> These two points go hand in hand if it has the sensor whose patent was covered on this site about 12-18 months ago.
> 
> ...


Conversely, if you seek to create a somewhat seemingly valid rumor, you base it upon a unicorn patent.


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 5, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> Why they never did it with dual pixel?


In the dual pixel configuration, both photodiodes share the same microlens so you cannot really get any more resolution out of reading out each individually. I guess if the quad pixel configuration has a distinct microlens for each photodiode you could get more resolution, but then I'm not sure how that affects the phase information. In any case this rumor seems more like someone's wish list than reality.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 5, 2021)

And the R1X actually freezes the world around you, allowing you to photograph the scene from every angle prior to restarting time until the next opportunity. 

Missed something? That’s okay, just hit rewind!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 5, 2021)

I'd rather believe in a 150 MP digital 3D Kodak Brownie with side-pipes and supercharger...


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

Serious note: All I want from the 1R is some good trickle down in a year or two's time.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 5, 2021)

It’s all true. Harryfilm has put Canon under pressure to bring outrageous specs to keep with his predictions. This is their response. Out spec that Harryfilm.


----------



## peconicgp (Mar 5, 2021)

$8500 also happens to be how much you are going to need to spend on hard drives to hold all those photos at 85mb and 20fps you will take.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 5, 2021)

Jim Corbett said:


> It'll most likely be 36-40 mpx, stacked CMOS, no LPF(hopefully), 30 fps 12bit compressed, 20 fps lossless 14bit - just like the Sony a1.
> The biggest thing/hope for me is the AF in video getting as good as the Photo AF, so again, hopefully, the QP will answer that prayer
> 85mpx GS in 10 years? Maybe. As of now is a total BS.


I'd buy that camera especially if the sensor readout speed is on par with the Sony A1 (or even in the 1/150s-1/180s range), and Canon makes a compelling 600mm prime offering along with it. I'd probably order the camera and dream about owning the prime.

And I'd be much happier with 36MP than with 85MP. 85MP might be great for landscape and, possibly, for studio work, but out in the field, 36-45MP is plenty.


----------



## Baxter2020 (Mar 5, 2021)

The only thing that comes close is the list price of US$ 8.500  Good luck Canon....


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Does the EL-1's specification hint at such a possibility?


No. I haven’t seen anything about faster t times and if they were they would have been a headline new feature.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Mar 5, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> If the Sony A1 is worth $6500 (and in my book it isn't) the this is easily worth $8500.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. No one is comparing the Sony A1 to the 1DX mk III or the Nikon D6. They're comparing it to the R5, which isn't even close to the same price point. Sony usually puts out a great product, but they basically put out an A9III with a 1DX price tag.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Mar 5, 2021)

Baxter2020 said:


> The only thing that comes close is the list price of US$ 8.500  Good luck Canon....


People buy the EF 600mm f4L at $13k... $8.5k might not be that hard of a sell to the people in the target demographic. I on the other hand will wait until 2030, when my second mortgage could buy a used/refurbished one.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 5, 2021)

peconicgp said:


> $8500 also happens to be how much you are going to need to spend on hard drives to hold all those photos at 85mb and 20fps you will take.


Hard drive space is pretty cheap these days.
I"m already shooting on a 100MP sensor camera and it isn't that bad.

I will admit, I son't spray and pray as much as I used to, and I'm more choosey about what images I keep, but that's something everyone should likely shoot for as a photographer anyway, eh?

It sure is nice to have that extra "room" in case you want to crop in on a shot and/or reframe it and have no perceptible change in resolution.

C


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 5, 2021)

DBounce said:


> The Red Komodo manages around 12 stops. Not bad for a global shutter, but nowhere near their silly 16 plus stops marketing hype claims.
> 
> If Canon can manage better than 14 usable stops, this camera would be the new benchmark.



Komodo claims 16 stops plus. Surf over to the Red website. Okay people argue it's not really 16+ but they claim 16+ just like the rumour.

The bigger issue is the Komodo is a crop sensor.


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 5, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> True. I probably should have said a global shutter in a semi affordable body. The Komodo is ridiculously expensive isnt it?



The Komodo is cheap for a Red . Cheaper than this rumour. Of course you need to rig it out so tack those costs on


----------



## TAF (Mar 5, 2021)

GreenViper said:


> A 21MP quad-pixel sensor would have 84MP pixels of course which could in theory have a special mode that could record each sub-pixel separately. And it would seem a waste of a quad pixel set up if you didn't have a dual or quad gain set up to improve DR. So whilst there are elements that could be true but it does have the smell of a wild optimist/attention-seeker! Mind you some of R5 rumours sounded pretty wild at the start
> I guess there will be people who could use a camera that switched 21/85MP, I can't see 85MP being of particular interest to the majority of the professional market though



Perfect Olympic camera.

Dual cards slots:

1st card gets RAW at 85MP. 2nd card gets sampled 21MP that you WiFi to your publisher. The "small" files goes onto the website or into the magazine that day, the large file exists for later when you pick the your best image of thousands for printing huge posters to sell to kids for their rooms.

All from one camera body.

This makes surprising sense from the work-flow perspective.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Mar 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> ...... I'd probably order the camera and dream about owning the prime.


Wrong way around - get the lens first, and match that to whatever you've got (assuming you have an R body) and then get a better camera later. Bodies come and go, lenses are (almost) forever


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

GreenViper said:


> A 21MP quad-pixel sensor would have 84MP pixels of course which could in theory have a special mode that could record each sub-pixel separately. And it would seem a waste of a quad pixel set up if you didn't have a dual or quad gain set up to improve DR. So whilst there are elements that could be true but it does have the smell of a wild optimist/attention-seeker! Mind you some of R5 rumours sounded pretty wild at the start
> I guess there will be people who could use a camera that switched 21/85MP, I can't see 85MP being of particular interest to the majority of the professional market though


Not according to Canon's description of the Dual Pixel, they do not consider an individual photodiode to be a pixel. Specifically they say







Now I am sure there are going to be another round of photodiodes vs pixel threads but bare in mind the R5 has 47 million pixels and 94 million photodiodes, yet the marketing has never pushed that as anything other than a 45mp sensor.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 5, 2021)

peconicgp said:


> $8500 also happens to be how much you are going to need to spend on hard drives to hold all those photos at 85mb and 20fps you will take.


2021 called. They want you to know that 16TB externals are only about $200 - peanuts when talking about cameras costing $4000 or more.
I chuckle when I hear people griping about battery prices for their R5 too. $79 for the real deal recommended battery for your $4000 camera?


----------



## Skux (Mar 5, 2021)

85mp global shutter lol


----------



## eosbob (Mar 5, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't know why so many people are shocked at the price. I think I paid near that for my EOS-1Ds Mk I MkII and MkIII.


The 1DX Mk III is going for $6499 and I bought my Mk II for $5699. $8500 is not near those prices. Hell, you could buy any 1D X and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for less and still get tack sharp images. It will have to be a banger of a camera before I would even think about it, and even then I would want to wait for at least 6 months to see how it goes. Think I will just buy a Mk III. I already have an R5 for high res shots.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 5, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> Does it make phone calls?



Nobody uses that app on their cameras anymore.


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

I'm finding the further these comments go, the more they are being treated and argued as if it was something other than a CR0. 

ZERO, which means phone included and drink holders are the most on topic part of this filbert.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 5, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Wrong way around - get the lens first, and match that to whatever you've got (assuming you have an R body) and then get a better camera later. Bodies come and go, lenses are (almost) forever


I hear you, and that's normally good advice especially if the camera and lens were priced similarly. However, the 600mm prime is very likely to cost 2x that of the R1, which may put it forever in dream territory.

I already have the 100-500L, which is a very nice lens especially in good light. My photography life won't end if I'm unable to supplement it with a nice prime. Meanwhile, if the R1 performs as well or nearly as well as does the Sony A1, then that body will make my 100-500L a better lens while I continue to dream about the 600mm prime.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 5, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> Serious note: All I want from the 1R is some good trickle down in a year or two's time.


A year or two? 

Canon released the original 1D X in 2012 with a 12fps mechanical shutter with full AF. It took 8 years for that tech to trickle down (to the R5). Canon released the 50MP 5Dr in 2015, six years later, Canon still hasn't released another 50MP+ ILC body (okay, you might want to count the R5 with 45MP, so 5 years).

As these examples show, technology--at least the really good stuff--can take a while to trickle down.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 5, 2021)

With the head of Nikon saying the Nikon D6 pro mirrorless replacement is coming this year and mentioning that it may have 8K, I'm strongly, strongly suspecting Canon will go big on resolution with the R1. I don't think this CR0 rumor is as crazy as we all think it is. The R5's specs also make far more sense at the pricepoint if the R1 gets more resolution and higher FPS.


----------



## john1970 (Mar 5, 2021)

Interesting speculation at this point is all I can say. Personally, I would be happy with quad-pixel AF, global shutter with 30 MP at my disposal. In a few more months we should see how this one develops. Will I buy one? Maybe? For me the R5 is already very capable. I am also very interested in seeing which lenses they announce and when they will ship.


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

Billybob said:


> A year or two?
> 
> Canon released the original 1D X in 2012 with a 12fps mechanical shutter with full AF. It took 8 years for that tech to trickle down (to the R5). Canon released the 50MP 5Dr in 2015, six years later, Canon still hasn't released another 50MP+ ILC body (okay, you might want to count the R5 with 45MP, so 5 years).
> 
> As these examples show, technology--at least the really good stuff--can take a while to trickle down.


We simply cannot rely on old patterns any longer. Canon is the new Canon


----------



## IBIS M5 (Mar 6, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.


it's one or the other. 
At one stage in the pipeline, an 85 megapixel global shutter sensor would have have to be (very roughly) x1000 faster than the rolling shutter sensor in the R5. If it was a ~35 megapixel global shutter it would annihilate.


----------



## vignes (Mar 6, 2021)

Best click bait from CR...
85Mpx FF GS sensor body for $8500.


----------



## dirtyvu (Mar 6, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> 2021 called. They want you to know that 16TB externals are only about $200 - peanuts when talking about cameras costing $4000 or more.
> I chuckle when I hear people griping about battery prices for their R5 too. $79 for the real deal recommended battery for your $4000 camera?



show me a link for $200 16TB hard drives. I would love to buy them!


----------



## Jack Jian (Mar 6, 2021)

So, is Canon going the path of global quad bayer sensor? 85MP actual and 21MP quad bayer processed, it's possible and is interesting. This explain the higher ISO and high DR performance quoted. Also 4x4 pixels working together for quad pixel AF. Interesting!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 6, 2021)

csibra said:


> The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


The specs look like a quad Bayer sensor so it is possible.
Fast action photographers would shoot at 21 MP.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If a sensor had quad pixel AF, which makes a lot of sense for orientation sensitivity, then it would have Y number of pixels and Y x 4 number of photodiodes.


A quad sensor would be 85 MP even if it were read at 21 MP.
It makes sense that the AF pixels could be read at 21 MP even when the rest of the sensor was read at 85 MP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> A quad sensor would be 85 MP even if it were read at 21 MP.
> It makes sense that the AF pixels could be read at 21 MP even when the rest of the sensor was read at 85 MP.


If that were so why do Canon call the 90 million photodiode R5 sensor 45 million pixels?

As for the AF reading less, I think you have that the wrong way around, the AF treats the different photodiodes as individual, the imaging side ‘sees’ the lower number.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> To be fair, the Komodo is an S35 sensor, not full frame.


It is more difficult to get a high dynamic range in super 35.
C300 needed DGO to get one more stop than C500.


----------



## Cochese (Mar 6, 2021)

$8500
85mpx

Yeah, this doesn't scream made up at all. lol.


----------



## Bundu (Mar 6, 2021)

I have no idea what the R1 specs is going to be. But I will preorder it. Because I believe it is not going to be a small incremental update of 1dxiii specs. It is most likely going to be the same jump as 5div=>R5. And the R5 already qualify as my dream camera. Or am I living in a dreamword of my own?


----------



## Billybob (Mar 6, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Get the MkI EF600/4LIS. It's optically very nearly as good as the MkIII (maybe worse flare?), but due to weight--which everyone put up with until 2013 or so--is twice the MkIII. And they go for like $4000, and you'll probably get the same when selling it many years so it doesn't really even have much of a cost of ownership.
> 
> Meanwhile, using a white telephoto half the time you have a TC involved anyway, so it's not like having to use an EF-RF convertor makes you do something appalling that other photogs aren't doing all the time anyway.


I hear that as well, but as I get older carting around extra weight becomes less acceptable. I've been using the Nikon 500mm pf, which is an absolute delight in the field. It's not significantly heavier (if at all, I haven't weighed them) than the 100-500. If I doubled the weight with the M II (or tripled the weight with the M I), it would clearly take much of the joy out of going out into the field.

My true dream is that Canon produces a DO version of the 600mm f/4 (or Nikon a pf version). If so, I might have to sell a kidney to fund the acquisition.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 6, 2021)

The new mirrorless flagship from Nikon is confirmed to be coming this year. It will have 8K video and is rumored to have a 60MP sensor. Sony’s Alpha 1 has a 50MP sensor and was designed to target the 1D series. Both can/will, shoot 8K video. Like it or not, 8k is the new standard. Canon knows this; so I fully expect to see a much higher resolution sensor make an appearance in this camera... And that sensor is going to need a seriously fast readout speed. What could be faster than global shutter? So don’t be surprised to see global shutter, because it’s time is here.... no longer a luxury, now a necessity.
Dynamic range will have to be competitive. Let me remind you, rumor has it that the current crop of Sony sensors can be enabled with Wide dynamic range mode, via a firmware update. This can boost their dynamic range to 16 plus stops... perhaps 14 plus usable stops? The stakes are high. Camera sales are dropping hard. This is definitely not the time to be holding back. It’s possible that Canon finally understands this.
I’m excited for this camera.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 6, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> show me a link for $200 16TB hard drives. I would love to buy them!




They just went off sale, but here are 14TB for $229 regular - I’ve seen these as low as $189.



https://www.amazon.com/12TB-Elements-Desktop-Drive-WDBWLG0120HBK-NESN/dp/B07YD3G568/?tag=digitren08-20&ascsubtag=1615043570b303baf6&th=1



Amazon has the WD 14TB for $232.

Point is, storage is cheap. These cost less than a 256GB CFE. If you can spend the money for a high resolution, top-tier camera, (R5 for example) you should‘t be whining about the cost to store the images - and it isn’t like you keep them all anyway. I pick the poses I like and delete the rest unless there is a compelling reason not to. Maybe you save everything.

I also don’t spray and pray like I did when I first picked up my camera so many years ago. I try to pretend I know what I’m doing and shoot a little bit more selectively.

On my purpose built PC, I have a 512 nVME SSD for boot and programs, a 1TB nVME SSD ‘work’ drive, and a 10TB internal storage drive with 2 10TB externals for mirrored backups. I have never had a storage issue or lost data problem in my life.

I also have two mirrored 8TB externals that I use for deep back up of all my keeper RAWs, JPGs, and all the really crappy shots I took when I first started shooting. I can’t get rid of them because they show my progress over the years, but I can’t bear to see them everyday either. I’m a slow learner shall we say.. ..lol..


----------



## tapanit (Mar 6, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> 2021 called. They want you to know that 16TB externals are only about $200 - peanuts when talking about cameras costing $4000 or more.
> I chuckle when I hear people griping about battery prices for their R5 too. $79 for the real deal recommended battery for your $4000 camera?


I would scream with joy if I could get LP-E6NH batteries for $79. Here they cost $135 and up. And no, I can't mail order them from abroad as nobody is willing to ship li-Ion batteries overseas, apparently they're too hazardous to ship economically in small quantities.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> The new mirrorless flagship from Nikon is confirmed to be coming this year. It will have 8K video and is rumored to have a 60MP sensor. Sony’s Alpha 1 has a 50MP sensor and was designed to target the 1D series. Both can/will, shoot 8K video. Like it or not, 8k is the new standard. Canon knows this; so I fully expect to see a much higher resolution sensor make an appearance in this camera... And that sensor is going to need a seriously fast readout speed. What could be faster than global shutter? So don’t be surprised to see global shutter, because it’s time is here.... no longer a luxury, now a necessity.
> Dynamic range will have to be competitive. Let me remind you, rumor has it that the current crop of Sony sensors can be enabled with Wide dynamic range mode, via a firmware update. This can boost their dynamic range to 16 plus stops... perhaps 14 plus usable stops? The stakes are high. Camera sales are dropping hard. This is definitely not the time to be holding back. It’s possible that Canon finally understands this.
> I’m excited for this camera.



I don’t believe 8K is the new standard at all. It’s a novelty that people downscale from at best. Thanks to the R5, I think 8K is what you have to have in your tag line to get the camera to move as compared to other cameras. A handful of people might actually NEED 8K for something but I don’t know what it is.

Until they start hanging 8K TVs on the wall I still see it as a niche. You still can’t get HQ 4K streams from any of the major services unless you pay more for it (most people don’t/won’t) and the 4K on YouTube isn't much better than their 2K If you can tell the difference at all.

4K DVDs are as big of a flop as BluRay was, if not bigger. I don’t know a single person that buys 4K DVDs. If I have to have something in 4K I just find a source and download it.

Until ISPs get rid of their data caps I can’t see real, clean, HQ high res becoming the standard over the crap they serve now. My ISP (I’m very choice limited because I live on an island) caps at 1.2TB per month which sounds like a lot but isn’t. NETFLIX garbage 4K can eat 7GB per hour and it’s terrabad.

No one is screaming for 8K streams are they? I don’t even people really crying for 4K. MOST people just watch what’s on and don’t think about whether they could count the person’s eyelashes or not.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 6, 2021)

tapanit said:


> I would scream with joy if I could get LP-E6NH batteries for $79. Here they cost $135 and up. And no, I can't mail order them from abroad as nobody is willing to ship li-Ion batteries overseas, apparently they're too hazardous to ship economically in small quantities.



Where is here? Is the R5 more expensive there as well?


----------



## amfoto1 (Mar 6, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Regarding resolution, that's interesting because if you scale up the 90D sensor from APS-C to full frame, the result is 83MP...
But there's little reason to cram such high resolution into a sports/action camera. Maybe the rumor is conflating two different cameras... A mythical "R1" sports model and a theoretical "R5s" studio rig to compete with medium format... Or maybe Canon is actually trying to build a single camera that does both.
The rear screen specs make no sense at all. There's simply no need for that level of resolution in an approx. 3" screen that will be used under a very wide range of lighting conditions. The EVF specs might be true for competitive reasons, but some Sony A1 reviewers comment that they see little difference compared to less extreme EVFs.
High speed frame rates... At what point does a stills camera become a video camera and your photographs become screen grabs?


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 6, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I don’t believe 8K is the new standard at all. It’s a novelty that people downscale from at best. Thanks to the R5, I think 8K is what you have to have in your tag line to get the camera to move as compared to other cameras. A handful of people might actually NEED 8K for something but I don’t know what it is.
> 
> Until they start hanging 8K TVs on the wall I still see it as a niche. You still can’t get HQ 4K streams from any of the major services unless you pay more for it (most people don’t/won’t) and the 4K on YouTube isn't much better than their 2K If you can tell the difference at all.



Don't confuse acquisition with delivery. 8K acquisition will render out better 4K It will let you crop and pan in post. It well let the people doing effects create better effects. 

Just like the BM 12K isn't about people watching 12K .


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> The new mirrorless flagship from Nikon is confirmed to be coming this year. It will have 8K video and is rumored to have a 60MP sensor. Sony’s Alpha 1 has a 50MP sensor and was designed to target the 1D series. Both can/will, shoot 8K video.



The Sony A1 doesn't shoot 8K. It's doing the equivalent of UHD. Even the new "cinema" camera they released doesn't do 4K.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 6, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I don’t believe 8K is the new standard at all. It’s a novelty that people downscale from at best. Thanks to the R5, I think 8K is what you have to have in your tag line to get the camera to move as compared to other cameras. A handful of people might actually NEED 8K for something but I don’t know what it is.
> 
> Until they start hanging 8K TVs on the wall I still see it as a niche. You still can’t get HQ 4K streams from any of the major services unless you pay more for it (most people don’t/won’t) and the 4K on YouTube isn't much better than their 2K If you can tell the difference at all.
> 
> ...


That might be so, but I doubt Canon would ship a brand new flagship without 8K. And we all know that 8K had better not overheat.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 6, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> The Sony A1 doesn't shoot 8K. It's doing the equivalent of UHD. Even the new "cinema" camera they released doesn't do 4K.


The Sony A1 doesn’t shot 8K... it shoots oversampled 8K. Check your facts:

8K UHD resolution is 7680x4320

*A1 8K resolution:*
UHD 8K (7680 x 4320) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p [200 to 400 Mb/s]


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> The Sony A1 doesn’t shot 8K... it shoots oversampled 8K. Check your facts:
> 
> 8K UHD resolution is 7680x4320
> 
> ...



And that isn't 8K. 8K 8192 not something with a 7 in it.


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 6, 2021)

At first, this whole 21mp and 85mp makes no sense, but when you start thinking, it kind of does.
Let me explain.

On a normal 20 mp sensor, you have 20 million diodes. each pixel is covered with the bayer pattern which identifies every single pixel as either green, blue or red.

Since canon introduced dual pixel technology, we effectively had 40 million diodes on a "20mp" bayer sensor. That is 2 diodes hiding behind each green, blue or red screen. The 2 diodes have made the dual pixel focusing possible calculating the micro-contrast between each set of 2 diodes for a global "phase difference". Hence the name "dual pixel" because indeed it's 2 pixels effectively behind each bayer piece.

Now, since those dual pixels (diodes) were arranged in such a way that they were twice as tall as they are large, it didn't make sense to read them as separate pixels for purposes of resolving the image. Pixels would have been twice as high as they are large. 


This would have caused visible "stepping" or aliasing problem. Their only purpose was for focusing. So a 40 million diode sensor was still 20mp since each bayer piece was counted as 1 pixel. In other words, the input information of the 2 diodes were combined into 1 output pixel to keep everything square and proper.

But now, with introduction of quad pixel technology which further improves focusing, we solve the problem we had bafore with only 2 diodes behind each bayer screen. You effectively have 4 diodes (pixels) behind each green, blue or red bayer screen. This is a 2 by 2 square. Each diode being the same size. This means that you have 2 options of how you can read the information. You have a total of 80 million diodes. Either you read them as a 20mp sensor - 4 diodes behind each red, green, blue screen constitute one pixel - or your read each diode (so 80 million of them) as an indivudual pixel and simply modify your debayering algorithms. 

Now, these debayering calculations would be way more complex and more taxing on the processor (I think up to 16 times) if you decided to use all 80 million diodes as pixels instead of using only the 20mp resolution, but it's possible. Hence, shooting 20 mp at 30 frames seems reasonable, but 20 frames at 80 mp seems a little sketchy. I think 10 fps at 80pm would be quite the achievement with the processing power involved. Unless they throw 2 current X processors into the R1, who knows how much processing power that actually is... maybe enough for 20 fps at 80mp despite the heavy processing needed.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 6, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Don't confuse acquisition with delivery. 8K acquisition will render out better 4K It will let you crop and pan in post. It well let the people doing effects create better effects.
> 
> Just like the BM 12K isn't about people watching 12K .


I'm not confusing anything.

MOST people don't want to spend the cash that recording in 8K requires.

Record in 8K on the R5, then render it to 4K, then go record in 4K HQ and play them all side by side and tell me that in today's world, with streaming solutions what they are, that it makes any sense at all.

Most people wouldn't know something was rendered from 8K unless you told them and explained what they should look for to tell - ESPECIALLY if they are streaming it via normal means onto a large 4K television - If they even have a 4K television - as of 2018, only around 31 percent households had a 4K HDTV.

Less than 1 in 3.

On Amazon - which is a huge streaming service, you're lucky to get 720P clean, much less 1080P. 4K is like a striped unicorn unless you want to watch flowers bloom or a waterfall or one of their original 'woke' productions..


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> That might be so, but I doubt Canon would ship a brand new flagship without 8K. And we all know that 8K had better not overheat.



We'll see. They've never been driven by anything other than their own vision when it comes to the 1DX line and that may hold true into the future. The big files aren't attractive when it comes to putting images on the wire and that's long been a driver for their flagship retaining a low-res (by comparison) option.

8K wasn't even a blip on the page when I was buying my R5. Aside from frame-stealing it's pointless AFAIC. The HQ 4K option looks as good as anything out there (IMO) and it's better than anything you can stream into your living room by a long shot.

It'll be a long time before 8K becomes mainstream as a desired choice for the masses. Hell, 4K isn't even there yet.


----------



## DBounce (Mar 6, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> And that isn't 8K. 8K 8192 not something with a 7 in it.


Look, I don’t know what authority you purport to be, but according to CTA 7680x 4320 is 8K resolution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2021)

7680 × 4320
This is the resolution of the UHDTV2 format defined in SMPTE ST 2036–1,[39][40] as well as the 8K UHDTV format defined in ITU-R BT.2020.[41] It was also chosen by the DVB project as the resolution for their 8K broadcasting standard, UHD-2.[42] It has 33.2 million total pixels, and is double the resolution of 4K UHD in each dimension (four times as many total pixels) or four times the resolution of 1080p in each dimension (sixteen times as many total pixels).









8K resolution - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 7680 × 4320
> This is the resolution of the UHDTV2 format defined in SMPTE ST 2036–1,[39][40] as well as the 8K UHDTV format defined in ITU-R BT.2020.[41] It was also chosen by the DVB project as the resolution for their 8K broadcasting standard, UHD-2.[42] It has 33.2 million total pixels, and is double the resolution of 4K UHD in each dimension (four times as many total pixels) or four times the resolution of 1080p in each dimension (sixteen times as many total pixels).
> 
> 
> ...



There seem to be two different definitions of 4K and 8K, one is multiples of the 1920 width that no one calls 2K, and the other is multiples of 1024 or rather 2048, a "K" in computer speak. Hence the confusion here between 8K meaning 8192, and 8K meaning 7680. Looking around at wikipoo, nothing seems to indicate anyone is using 8192 pixel width for anything, though both versions of 4K seem to be in use in different contexts.

And of course the truly pedantic will state that K = 1000 and anything else is an abuse of the term, which is why computer people are encourage to talk of kebibytes instead of kilobytes (and mebibytes, gibibtyes and tebibtyes, all powers of 1024 instead of a 1000). This became necessary because hard drive manufacturers started advertising drive capacities in "gigabytes" meaning billions of bytes to try to make their drives look bigger. (Given that a sector is 512 bytes, it would be natural to use the 1024 base, but weasels will be weasels.)


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 6, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> Why they never did it with dual pixel?


dual pixel is:

RRGG
GGBB

So you end up with 6000x4000 if the sub pixels are combined into one and it's treated like a bayer array. If you don't combine them (the higher end bodies let you save a dual pixel raw where they aren't combined), you would effectively end up with a 12000x4000 image and would have to stretch out the vertical to 8000 pixels. With quad pixel AF, there's no need for that as it's two sub pixels horizontal, and two vertical.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 6, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> In the dual pixel configuration, both photodiodes share the same microlens so you cannot really get any more resolution out of reading out each individually. I guess if the quad pixel configuration has a distinct microlens for each photodiode you could get more resolution, but then I'm not sure how that affects the phase information. In any case this rumor seems more like someone's wish list than reality.


They have to be under the same microlens for the phase information, and yes, it does result in more spatial resolution. On the higher end Canon bodies, you can save a dual pixel raw file where each sub pixel isn't combined and extract them out and on close inspection, each sub pixel is very clearly capturing distinct spatial information unique to each sub pixel position. The bear is there's no standard way to extract and combine the sub pixels and with dual pixel, you end up with a picture that is way wider than tall and you have to vertically stretch it, negating a bunch of the reason for doing it in the first place. With a quad pixel AF, not so much the case.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not according to Canon's description of the Dual Pixel, they do not consider an individual photodiode to be a pixel. Specifically they say
> 
> View attachment 196116
> 
> ...


You do realize that Canon's higher end bodies let you save dual pixel raw files where each sub pixel is saved separately, don't you?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> You do realize that Canon's higher end bodies let you save dual pixel raw files where each sub pixel is saved separately, don't you?


I do. Take a look through my posting history! And that doesn’t answer my question.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 6, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Look, I don’t know what authority you purport to be, but according to CTA 7680x 4320 is 8K resolution.


There's 8K (as consumers see it, i.e. 7680x4320) and DCI 8K, which is 8192x4320. DCI 8K, like DCI 4K (which is 4096x2160) is a studio mastering and digital projection format that is used in movie theaters. In the home, it FullHD, UHD, and 8K, each at 1920x1080, 3840x2160, and 7680x4320.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I do. Take a look through my posting history! And that doesn’t answer my question.


What is your question? I didn't see one on the post I responded to.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> What is your question? I didn't see one on the post I responded to.


Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?

A 21mp quad sensor would have 84 million photodiodes but according to Canon themselves, in it's current format/definition, would still only be a 21mp sensor.

Like I have said across threads now it isn't me that is splitting hairs on the terminology but we are going to have a whole load more threads on this if that is what they are doing.

Personally I never fully appreciated the distinction Canon have made, but they have, so now we might be looking at an interesting time of backpedaling and re-education on the finer points and definitions of pixels vs photodiodes.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?
> 
> A 21mp quad sensor would have 84 million photodiodes but according to Canon themselves, in it's current format/definition, would still only be a 21mp sensor.
> 
> ...


Probably because to date, all raw processing software (at least that I know of) only sees Bayer arrays, and that would be Canon's default output. Even now, with being able to save dual pixel raw, Canon only uses that info so you can do AF micro adjustments after the fact, not actually generate a file with more resolution from the two sub-pixels.

Going to quad pixel AF still allows very easy bayer output, and if done, does allow very easy spatial resolution bumps by not combining the sub pixels, but does significantly bump up the post processing requirements. I suspect part of the reason why canon went to the CR3 file format over the CR2 format is to make it easier to store non-standard pixel arrays. You can save dual pixel raw files in CR2 files (like the 5DIV does), but it basically stores it as two bayer array images in sub-chunks. The CR3 format stores each color discretely in it's own chunk and the raw processor has to then read each color chunk, then combine it into a bayer array, then demosaic it. The CR3 format is a pretty big deviation to how Canon stores its sensor data over the CR2 format.

I also suspect Canon has very good reason to go quad pixel AF because it allows them to have more than 2 output gains. This is how they were able to get the DR increases and noise improvements in recent dual pixel bodies. Each sub-pixel is actually 1 stop different than the other one. The way they store it in CR2 files, again, is less than ideal, as they store the first bayer array as they normally would with both sub pixels combined, and the second bayer array with just the output of the second sub-pixel. With a quad pixel array, they'd have pretty good reason to store each sub-pixel by itself if saving quad-pixel files as it would mean a lot more flexibility when generating a full color image. That, and they could have quad gain structure where each sub pixel had 1 stop more gain than the next, giving a combined 4 stop spread between the sub pixels with which to generate an image from. This would be how they could get to 15.5+ stops (if outputting a ~24MP bayer array where all the sub pixels are combined). They could keep a 12 or 14 bit AD, and have 4 gain outputs. If they stored each sub pixel separately, they don't even have to store 16 bits per pixel, they could still do 12 or 14 bits, then when generating the full color image after the fact in their DPP software, store the full resulting RGB as a 16 bit TIFF file. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was just a straight 12 bit ADC (for speed), and they just use the multi-gain to get the DR.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 7, 2021)

Without an OVF very few professionals are going to make the investment in multiple bodies and glass.
Canon might want to go after sports that use a gimbal in not so bright light where there is less erratic movement. OVF and EVF hybrid?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 7, 2021)

Red Dog said:


> This is no toy, its primary market is the pro sports/media outlets primarily so I'd expect it to be a reasonably hefty price like the 1dx mkiii was, although $8500 might be a bit out of reach for many in the current climate. In terms of specs it may well increase the MP to 40 but I see no reason why anyone would want or needs more than 20 fps, particularly in media work. I know a few media colleagues who have experimented with using the R5/R6 for sports and whilst they do work well, they struggle with so many frames to scroll through to tag images for editing. Very easy to hold the shutter button down when its completely silent and then realise you've taken 50 pics in a few short bursts. When you're working under time pressures in the field you don't need this. Be interesting to see what eventually appears, but I'd expect many of the increases in MP and FPS to be incremental and not mindblowing.


You can always limit the number.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> Probably because to date, all raw processing software (at least that I know of) only sees Bayer arrays, and that would be Canon's default output. Even now, with being able to save dual pixel raw, Canon only uses that info so you can do AF micro adjustments after the fact, not actually generate a file with more resolution from the two sub-pixels.
> 
> Going to quad pixel AF still allows very easy bayer output, and if done, does allow very easy spatial resolution bumps by not combining the sub pixels, but does significantly bump up the post processing requirements. I suspect part of the reason why canon went to the CR3 file format over the CR2 format is to make it easier to store non-standard pixel arrays. You can save dual pixel raw files in CR2 files (like the 5DIV does), but it basically stores it as two bayer array images in sub-chunks. The CR3 format stores each color discretely in it's own chunk and the raw processor has to then read each color chunk, then combine it into a bayer array, then demosaic it. The CR3 format is a pretty big deviation to how Canon stores its sensor data over the CR2 format.
> 
> I also suspect Canon has very good reason to go quad pixel AF because it allows them to have more than 2 output gains. This is how they were able to get the DR increases and noise improvements in recent dual pixel bodies. Each sub-pixel is actually 1 stop different than the other one. The way they store it in CR2 files, again, is less than ideal, as they store the first bayer array as they normally would with both sub pixels combined, and the second bayer array with just the output of the second sub-pixel. With a quad pixel array, they'd have pretty good reason to store each sub-pixel by itself if saving quad-pixel files as it would mean a lot more flexibility when generating a full color image. That, and they could have quad gain structure where each sub pixel had 1 stop more gain than the next, giving a combined 4 stop spread between the sub pixels with which to generate an image from. This would be how they could get to 15.5+ stops (if outputting a ~24MP bayer array where all the sub pixels are combined). They could keep a 12 or 14 bit AD, and have 4 gain outputs. If they stored each sub pixel separately, they don't even have to store 16 bits per pixel, they could still do 12 or 14 bits, then when generating the full color image after the fact in their DPP software, store the full resulting RGB as a 16 bit TIFF file. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was just a straight 12 bit ADC (for speed), and they just use the multi-gain to get the DR.


Quad Bayer array sensors have been available for years.

Of course it makes sense for AF as at a very minimum, depending on how Canon algorithms are written it will vastly improve detect for horizontal and vertical lines regardless of the camera orientation.

But none of your technicalese, that if you had looked at my previous postings on Dual Pixel Sensors would have shown you I already knew, addresses the only question I had. If Canon differentiate between a photodiode and a pixel under their own definition the R5 is a 45mp camera NOT a 90mp camera. Canon state unequivocally it is a 45mp camera with 90million photodiodes. Similarly an 84 million photodiode quad sensor would have 21 million pixels.

The R5 does illustrate the fact that Canon can already process images with 90 million photodiodes 20 times a second so DIGIC capacity for an R1 series should be capable of 84 million photodiodes at 40 times a second without issue.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Mar 7, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Without an OVF very few professionals are going to make the investment in multiple bodies and glass.
> Canon might want to go after sports that use a gimbal in not so bright light where there is less erratic movement. OVF and EVF hybrid?


This would be an example of talking out of the side of your neck.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 7, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> This would be an example of talking out of the side of your neck.


Indeed.

How do you put an OVF on a mirrorless camera, unless, of course, you're willing to tolerate it being off-axis? 

Which, if such a thing were tolerable, would have meant no one would have bothered to invent such a kludgy thing as an SLR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2021)

IggyMo said:


> At first, this whole 21mp and 85mp makes no sense, but when you start thinking, it kind of does.
> Let me explain.
> 
> On a normal 20 mp sensor, you have 20 million diodes. each pixel is covered with the bayer pattern which identifies every single pixel as either green, blue or red.
> ...


Quad Pixel sensors have been available for years in phones, the resolution gains so far have proven to be minimal, the true advantages are in noise calculations (that's a turn around from the old days of small pixels are noisy pixels isn't it?) and the ability to digitally 'zoom' particularly for video where pixel numbers are a key factor.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Quad Bayer array sensors have been available for years.
> 
> Of course it makes sense for AF as at a very minimum, depending on how Canon algorithms are written it will vastly improve detect for horizontal and vertical lines regardless of the camera orientation.
> 
> ...


They don't say the R5 is a 90MP sensor because they don't output 90MP. They output 45. The reason they do that is that with dual pixel, there's little image quality benefit to double the horizontal resolution but interpolate the vertical resolution. I said as much on my last reply to you. Whether you consider it an answer is up to you. You can ask the same question about the Canon C100. It has a 4K sensor, but only outputs full HD, and Canon describes it as an HD video camera, not a 4K camera. Why don't they call it a 4K camera? It doesn't output 4K. Same with dual pixel sensors. It's not that complicated.

With quad pixel AF, they can double both directions, so, IF they were to go that route, I described one possible way they could and extract more resolution at little to no cost. We're talking about a CR0, so how it goes is anybody's guess.


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 7, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I'm not confusing anything.
> 
> MOST people don't want to spend the cash that recording in 8K requires.
> 
> ...



The point I was trying to make is even if you're watching in 720 it was likely filmed in higher resolutions. You don't even need to do that for the whole video. If you have a segment that needs the higher resolution you can . Making it easier to do some magic in post. 

Locally at the moment it's almost impossible to buy anything but UHD TVs. The few FHD models left are either small or very cheap. Less than €200. Often from no name brands. 

The problem with streaming is that the companies often have to pay extra for each version. Locally Amazon at times doesn't even buy the English language rights to Hollywood movies. OTOH if you watch something produced for Amazon like American Gods it's in full UHD.


----------



## tapanit (Mar 7, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> Where is here? Is the R5 more expensive there as well?


Finland. Yes, R5 is more expensive here as well but only because of higher taxes (~$5000 including 25% VAT).


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 7, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> [..]
> Record in 8K on the R5, then render it to 4K, then go record in 4K HQ and play them all side by side and tell me that in today's world, with streaming solutions what they are, that it makes any sense at all.[..]


On my 4k TV I don't see a difference between them when played locally, but in a few weeks when there are more bugs around I am going to try recording everything macro in 8k so I can crop to hopefully-more-than 4k.

I bet I'll get tired of it after a morning or 3 and start eyeing bigger CFe, an extra disk for the storage array and a non-90 days license for Final Cut


----------



## MBMedia (Mar 7, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Ok. There you go. I thought they were far more than that. I stand corrected. In that case what is holding the rest back then?


They are only $6,000 if you already own the lenses, batteries, media, cage, monitor, mattebox, NDs, follow focus, proper audio inputs etc. They play the same game as Black Magic when it comes to concealing true cost of ownership.

That's why the Canon C70 is so great at it's price point because you get cheaper media, the same sensor as c300 mkii, built in ND, proper audio etc etc. Not to mention it comes with a battery! Downside is you don't get to be a part of the club. Which let's face it, reds greatest marketing tool had always been the ability to tell clients "we use the same camera they used for (insert blockbuster movie here)"


----------



## londonxt (Mar 7, 2021)

What? No mention of a touch bar(TM). Think I`ll be re-mortgaging for the EOS R Mk II instead


----------



## TMHKR (Mar 7, 2021)

Jesus Christ, Tony Northrup took the bait and spreads this "leaked info" as factual (and I'm afraid he won't be the only one)


----------



## Bahrd (Mar 7, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> With quad pixel AF, they can double both directions, so, IF they were to go that route, I described one possible way they could and extract more resolution at little to no cost. We're talking about a CR0, so how it goes is anybody's guess.


By design the phase pixels (be them dual- or quad-) register the phase information (that is, a shift between H/V half images). The shift is null only if the corresponding part of the image is in focus.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 7, 2021)

TMHKR said:


> Jesus Christ, Tony Northrup took the bait and spreads this "leaked info" as factual (and I'm afraid he won't be the only one)




He’s so funny. Was he standing at his “news desk” with the prop camera and/or lens on the counter and the plain text on the flatscreen behind him glaring the “headlines” doing the Northrop ‘eye-roll’ presentation?

Of course he was. Someone needs to tell him that his constant looking at the ceiling in his read-backs isn’t confidence inspiring. I once counted 22 in one segment...

He makes bank though. House and cars are on point.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2021)

TMHKR said:


> Jesus Christ, Tony Northrup took the bait and spreads this "leaked info" as factual (and I'm afraid he won't be the only one)


I don’t know if we watched the same video but I saw him say CR gave it a rating as unbelievable, but he thinks there is some merit to the possible specs. He then went on to explain why he thought there was merit, basically he did what he does, if you don’t like that then don’t watch him.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 7, 2021)

Boy , we wanted high MP's. But not for nearly that much $$$$. Maybe the other brand's offerings are looking better?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Mar 7, 2021)

TMHKR said:


> Jesus Christ, Tony Northrup took the bait and spreads this "leaked info" as factual (and I'm afraid he won't be the only one)


TBH he never stated them as fact. He used words like 'plausible' etc and he did acknowledge the Cr0 rating.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 7, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I don’t believe 8K is the new standard at all. It’s a novelty that people downscale from at best. Thanks to the R5, I think 8K is what you have to have in your tag line to get the camera to move as compared to other cameras. A handful of people might actually NEED 8K for something but I don’t know what it is.
> 
> Until they start hanging 8K TVs on the wall I still see it as a niche. You still can’t get HQ 4K streams from any of the major services unless you pay more for it (most people don’t/won’t) and the 4K on YouTube isn't much better than their 2K If you can tell the difference at all.
> 
> ...


my wedding was shot in 360i 30+ years ago as it was standard for the day. Pretty average when played back now. 720p would have been very high end at that time. The A1's 8k record rate of 200mb/s means that it can be used as a original source without major storage drama. In 30 years time 8k will be standard delivery/streaming and display for sure although we are reaching limits of our eyes and distance to screen. The R5's firehouse data transfer in 8k raw and 4k/120 cause the overheating problem as they can't be recorded externally as the HDMI interface is limited but the CFe card will support it. If Canon had released the R5 with cinema lite codecs and could record externally without overheating then the major issue would have been overcome. Raw internally for special purposes in <20 minutes but compressed raw eternally.


----------



## dirtyvu (Mar 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> my wedding was shot in 360i 30+ years ago as it was standard for the day. Pretty average when played back now. 720p would have been very high end at that time. The R5's firehouse data transfer in 8k raw and 4k/120 cause the overheating problem as they can't be recorded externally as the HDMI interface is limited but the CFe card will support it. If Canon had released the R5 with cinema lite codecs and could record externally without overheating then the major issue would have been overcome. Raw internally for special purposes in <20 minutes but compressed raw eternally.



I've used the 4K120 and granted, it's not summertime (but we do have spring conditions right now in sunny Southern California), and I haven't had any issues recording 4k120. I am mindful of not just recording continuously in that mode. But I haven't hit the limit. I think when people record for slow motion, they aren't recording for long periods of time. No one wants to sit through a wedding in slo-mo so why would you recording 4k120 for half an hour for anything.

And after learning that you can get 4KHQ quality with regular 4K if you enable crop mode, then I don't worry at all about overheating because 4K in crop mode won't overheat under any kind of usage. You still get the great oversampling down to 4K (6K to 4K?).

It would be nice to record in 8k raw or 4k120 without having to think about things. But if you are aware and plan for it, the time limits aren't that bad anymore. and 200mb/s for 8k seems awfully low. At least I don't have to worry about sunlight causing overheating on the A7S3 (see Dan Watson's videos, just bizarre).


----------



## slclick (Mar 7, 2021)

It is so nice to only shoot stills and not give a single 'thought' about all that above.


----------



## Talys (Mar 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> my wedding was shot in 360i 30+ years ago as it was standard for the day. Pretty average when played back now. 720p would have been very high end at that time. The A1's 8k record rate of 200mb/s means that it can be used as a original source without major storage drama. In 30 years time 8k will be standard delivery/streaming and display for sure although we are reaching limits of our eyes and distance to screen. The R5's firehouse data transfer in 8k raw and 4k/120 cause the overheating problem as they can't be recorded externally as the HDMI interface is limited but the CFe card will support it. If Canon had released the R5 with cinema lite codecs and could record externally without overheating then the major issue would have been overcome. Raw internally for special purposes in <20 minutes but compressed raw eternally.


I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation 

And yet, I suspect, 30 years from now, stills will be stills and capturing the moment, creating a story from a single image that can spark the imagination.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 8, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> I've used the 4K120 and granted, it's not summertime (but we do have spring conditions right now in sunny Southern California), and I haven't had any issues recording 4k120. I am mindful of not just recording continuously in that mode. But I haven't hit the limit. I think when people record for slow motion, they aren't recording for long periods of time. No one wants to sit through a wedding in slo-mo so why would you recording 4k120 for half an hour for anything.
> 
> And after learning that you can get 4KHQ quality with regular 4K if you enable crop mode, then I don't worry at all about overheating because 4K in crop mode won't overheat under any kind of usage. You still get the great oversampling down to 4K (6K to 4K?).
> 
> It would be nice to record in 8k raw or 4k120 without having to think about things. But if you are aware and plan for it, the time limits aren't that bad anymore. and 200mb/s for 8k seems awfully low. At least I don't have to worry about sunlight causing overheating on the A7S3 (see Dan Watson's videos, just bizarre).


I've used 4k/120 for short clips - mostly for underwater shooting where there is a lot of movement (you/subject etc). I wouldn't record a wedding in 4k/120... that would be painful and sounds isn't recorded anyway. Recording in 8K would be more realistic I think if there Canon was to release the awaited cinema lite compression options - especially for external recording. At my daughter's wedding a couple of years ago, I setup my iPhone and let it 4un for 90 minutes recording in 4k/30 with an external mic. Pretty good quality as the lighting was reasonable in the church and the iPhone was slightly warm afterwards. No issues with 30 minute limitations either.
I'm sure that the 60gb file will sit somewhere for a long time doing nothing but there will be a time that they will look at it or parts of it again  
If I understand correctly, the A1's 8k mode records at 200mb/s. The slots are dual USH-II/CFe type A cards. Continuous 200mb/s is possible with good (mostly V90 rated) USH-II cards and easy for CFe type A cards. The R5's 8k/30 raw and 4k/120 are 2600/1880Mb/s respectively which is huge in comparison. That said, the R5's 8k/IPB video can be written to a USH-II card V60 (8 bit) and V90 (10 bit).


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 8, 2021)

Talys said:


> I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation
> 
> And yet, I suspect, 30 years from now, stills will be stills and capturing the moment, creating a story from a single image that can spark the imagination.


Images have stood the test of time so far and image depictions for 10s of thousands of year. A still image still crystallises a moment in time for people to process.
You are right that humans don't cope with comprehending exponential growth so what has happened in the last 30 years is light years from what is possible in 30 years' time. 
Video will move towards realism - whether fps, resolution, 3D, hologram etc and maybe different input methods ie not via our limited eyes.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Indeed.
> 
> How do you put an OVF on a mirrorless camera, unless, of course, you're willing to tolerate it being off-axis?
> 
> Which, if such a thing were tolerable, would have meant no one would have bothered to invent such a kludgy thing as an SLR.


To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.


----------



## masterpix (Mar 8, 2021)

ISO 160? I would go to ISO 25... although I am not sure how that can be implemented


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 8, 2021)

masterpix said:


> ISO 160? I would go to ISO 25... although I am not sure how that can be implemented


It would open up possibilities for very large aperture lenses on sunny days for still and video, but I found ISO 25 hard to use for casual things. The picture in my avatar was shot on Rollei RPX 25 ISO 120 film, outside in the sun


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 8, 2021)

Talys said:


> I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation
> 
> And yet, I suspect, 30 years from now, stills will be stills and capturing the moment, creating a story from a single image that can spark the imagination.


That goes too deep into simulacrum territory for me, crossing the line from memory aid to fake-reliving the moment.


----------



## yeahright (Mar 8, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> Probably because to date, all raw processing software (at least that I know of) only sees Bayer arrays, and that would be Canon's default output. Even now, with being able to save dual pixel raw, Canon only uses that info so you can do AF micro adjustments after the fact, not actually generate a file with more resolution from the two sub-pixels.
> 
> Going to quad pixel AF still allows very easy bayer output, and if done, does allow very easy spatial resolution bumps by not combining the sub pixels, but does significantly bump up the post processing requirements. I suspect part of the reason why canon went to the CR3 file format over the CR2 format is to make it easier to store non-standard pixel arrays. You can save dual pixel raw files in CR2 files (like the 5DIV does), but it basically stores it as two bayer array images in sub-chunks. The CR3 format stores each color discretely in it's own chunk and the raw processor has to then read each color chunk, then combine it into a bayer array, then demosaic it. The CR3 format is a pretty big deviation to how Canon stores its sensor data over the CR2 format.
> 
> I also suspect Canon has very good reason to go quad pixel AF because it allows them to have more than 2 output gains. This is how they were able to get the DR increases and noise improvements in recent dual pixel bodies. Each sub-pixel is actually 1 stop different than the other one. The way they store it in CR2 files, again, is less than ideal, as they store the first bayer array as they normally would with both sub pixels combined, and the second bayer array with just the output of the second sub-pixel. With a quad pixel array, they'd have pretty good reason to store each sub-pixel by itself if saving quad-pixel files as it would mean a lot more flexibility when generating a full color image. That, and they could have quad gain structure where each sub pixel had 1 stop more gain than the next, giving a combined 4 stop spread between the sub pixels with which to generate an image from. This would be how they could get to 15.5+ stops (if outputting a ~24MP bayer array where all the sub pixels are combined). They could keep a 12 or 14 bit AD, and have 4 gain outputs. If they stored each sub pixel separately, they don't even have to store 16 bits per pixel, they could still do 12 or 14 bits, then when generating the full color image after the fact in their DPP software, store the full resulting RGB as a 16 bit TIFF file. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was just a straight 12 bit ADC (for speed), and they just use the multi-gain to get the DR.


The microlenses above each pixel (divided into 2 for dual-pixel or - in the future - 4 sub-pixels for quad-pixel AF) are designed so that each of the subpixels covers exactly the same surface area on an in-focus subject. That is the whole point of DPAF or QPAF. Therefore, you cannot increase the resolution by simply outputting the information from every one of the sub-pixels, because you'd simply end up with 2 (resp. 4) identical images of the in-focus areas. The out-of-focus areas of the image appear shifted (to the left and right for dual pixel and to top-left / top-right / bottom-left / bottom-right for quad pixel), and the amount of shift is dependent on the distance of the out-of-focus point to the focus plane - the further away from the focus plane, the larger the shift. Furthermore, each of the sub-images only covers half (or a quarter) of the aperture. So the sub-images have less background blur than you'd get from what the aperture actually is set to, and the background (or foreground) blur in the sub-images will be shifted w.r.t. to each other (see bokeh shift function on DPRAW files). By adding the individual sub-images you get the image you'd also get without having split the pixels in the first place. I don't see that there's anything to gain w.r.t. resolution.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 8, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> The point I was trying to make is even if you're watching in 720 it was likely filmed in higher resolutions. You don't even need to do that for the whole video. If you have a segment that needs the higher resolution you can . Making it easier to do some magic in post.
> 
> Locally at the moment it's almost impossible to buy anything but UHD TVs. The few FHD models left are either small or very cheap. Less than €200. Often from no name brands.
> 
> The problem with streaming is that the companies often have to pay extra for each version. Locally Amazon at times doesn't even buy the English language rights to Hollywood movies. OTOH if you watch something produced for Amazon like American Gods it's in full UHD.


“American Gods”

But still looks like crap while burning ridiculous bandwidth..


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 8, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.



That’s one opinion.


----------



## ozturert (Mar 8, 2021)

What would be intereseting is if R1's specs trickle down to some R7 (7D Mark II's mirrorless version).


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 8, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.


Have you actually tried an A9/A9ii/A1? You might be surprised.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> Have you actually tried an A9/A9ii/A1? You might be surprised.


I have, I still don’t get on with EVF’s as well as OVF’s. I accept there are some benefits to EVF’s but after looking through an OVF for 40 odd years I still find looking through an EVF is nauseating after several hours, I get eye strain and the latency, even on high refresh rate EVF’s, doesn’t match what my brain expects.

Personally I think it is down to my age and generation, I believe newer and younger photographers can embrace EVF’s without the brain memory (like muscle memory but different!). I have used 1 series cameras since forever and so have been very spoilt with OVF’s, but I will be very interested to see what Canon can do with the EVF in the R1.


----------



## slclick (Mar 8, 2021)

oh boy, the bear has been poked....


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 8, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> Have you actually tried an A9/A9ii/A1? You might be



I've not tried the A1 yet to see how it would hold up to the sea water in the high sunshine but the point is moot with the EVF. But I will....


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I have, I still don’t get on with EVF’s as well as OVF’s. I accept there are some benefits to EVF’s but after looking through an OVF for 40 odd years I still find looking through an EVF is nauseating after several hours, I get eye strain and the latency, even on high refresh rate EVF’s, doesn’t match what my brain expects.
> 
> Personally I think it is down to my age and generation, I believe newer and younger photographers can embrace EVF’s without the brain memory (like muscle memory but different!). I have used 1 series cameras since forever and so have been very spoilt with OVF’s, but I will be very interested to see what Canon can do with the EVF in the R1.



I’m 57, have crap eyes, and love my EVF cameras more every time I pick them up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I’m 57, have crap eyes, and love my EVF cameras more every time I pick them up.


How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.

I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.


----------



## slclick (Mar 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.
> 
> I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.


Same, 56, semi crap eyes with a retinal scarring (from AMPPE )and EVF's really mess with me. #1 reason I'm still using my 5D3. I keep trying out new bodies but more than a couple minutes and I have a terrible adjustment period with the camera away from my eye. OVF? I can shoot and shoot with only the minimal issues.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.
> 
> I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.



You’d have to define ‘hours at a time’ because I have never held a camera of any kind up to my eye continually for hours at a time.

On a typical shooting day - out hunting wildlife or whatnot - I’ll be out anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. Depending on what I’m looking for, my camera will be up and down from my eye constantly all through that period. Sometimes for minutes at a time, sometimes only for seconds. I don’t know how that equates to what you’re saying. It’s really hard to equivocate. 

The EVF transition was truly seamless for me - I honestly didn’t know I was supposed to have trouble until I started reading about it on the internet.

The first things I notice when I shoot my 5D4 or 7D2 now is how dull and dim the OVF is, and I have to remind myself to take test shots to make sure my settings are close before I start trying to move in on a subject. With the EVF I just lift the camera and keep walking and adjust as I’m going knowing beforehand what I’m going to get as I go...


----------



## Esplak (Mar 9, 2021)

The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2021)

Esplak said:


> The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.


We might have more faith in your input if you were a little more precise. The Canon 1D MkIII was a 10mp APS-H sensored camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> You’d have to define ‘hours at a time’ because I have never held a camera of any kind up to my eye continually for hours at a time.
> 
> On a typical shooting day - out hunting wildlife or whatnot - I’ll be out anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. Depending on what I’m looking for, my camera will be up and down from my eye constantly all through that period. Sometimes for minutes at a time, sometimes only for seconds. I don’t know how that equates to what you’re saying. It’s really hard to equivocate.
> 
> ...


Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.
> 
> I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.


I agree. Shooting international sporting events for a week or more, waking at 6AM and shooting until dark or into the evening we take extreme stress on our eyes before we edit a single shot. No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.

If you can shoot a slower or less eratice sport normally on a gimbal and not miss the action, then a EVF could work for a brief period of time under lighting conditions not deemed tropical bright ot low light.


----------



## Sigurd2 (Mar 9, 2021)

If shooting wildlife in crop mode for extra reach, 85MP would translate into 33MP. About the same as 90D and M6 Mark II.

So 85MP is not TO much


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 9, 2021)

Nikon will be announcing their equivalent pro body tomorrow (March 10). Actually it's a development announcement not a release announcement, but still I wonder if this will spur Canon to make a similar development announcement?








Breaking: Nikon Z9 professional mirrorless camera development rumored to be announced tomorrow - Nikon Rumors


Tomorrow (March 10th) Nikon is rumored to announce the development of their professional Z9 mirrorless camera. The actual release will happen later in 2021. We will either see a development press release and/or a teaser for the new camera. There will no details or technical specifications. What...




nikonrumors.com


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.




Okay. By that measure I could say that I do it infrequently, but I have done it on several occasions both with my EOS-R and my R5. I haven't had an issue but I know my experience is peculiar to me and other people have genuine issues with using the EVF. I suppose I'm just one of the folks that doesn't.

I have the luxury of being retired early (almost ten years now) and not being pressured to shoot in the manner that you describe. If I had to, I doubt I would enjoy it and photography likely wouldn't be the enjoyable activity that it is for me.


----------



## Peet30 (Mar 9, 2021)

Hey Guys! RF mount you think for the Canon EOS R1?


----------



## Nelu (Mar 9, 2021)

Peet30 said:


> Hey Guys! RF mount you think for the Canon EOS R1?


???
Yes, it will have a mount...


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 9, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.



You know the trouble I find when speaking in blanket absolutes? I end up being wrong 100 percent of the time.

Everything you list is your opinion and many, many professionals obviously disagree with you because some of the top pro shooters, including sports and wildlife photographers, have already moved to mirrorless. I believe the exodus will accelerate as the fresh tech pours into the mirrorless world and DSLR gets left even further behind. I believe we're reaching the point where mirrorless bodies will be able to deliver results that DSLRs just can't match and that gap is going to grow, not shrink. I think that's a statement that everyone can agree with to some degree.

Mirrorless tech is going to advance and DLSR tech is pretty much at a standstill - at least in the Canon world. I also thought this was interesting to read although it isn't really on-topic for this discussion.

So far, I haven't had a single image where I've looked at my result and said "rolling shutter ruined the shot..." I've had dozens, however, where I've looked at a shot and thought "I'd have never gotten this shot if I wasn't shooting the R5" simply because of the higher FPS. Getting acceptable or 'good' wildlife photos, especially birds, can often be down to the wing position you're able to capture. I'm sure some aspects of sports would be the same. 8FPS out of a 5D4 or 10 FPS out of a 7D2 can't compete with 20FPS out of an R5 - and the R5 does it silently.

Imagine if the 40FPS rumor here is true. Sorry, but once you've shot 20FPS with a completely silent shutter the CLACK-CLACK-CLACK of 10FPS on my 7D2 sounds like a Gatling gun in church - and the critters notice the difference. The regular shutter on my R5 is quieter than the 'silent' shutter on my 5D4, forget the 7D2.

In some sports that obviously doesn't matter, but in many situations (pro golf for example) silent shutter is now preferred around the tee and greens. I'm reading tennis as well. I'm also reading that it's becoming preferred in pre-game and post-game interview rooms as well - just as we've seen in other press events. I can understand why. Not a deal breaker of course but the trend is there and will likely continue rather than recede.

Eventually, unless you're still competitive shooting your ten year old 1DX III, the switch is going to be forced upon you. You'll either switch or you won't be a working photographer anymore because you won't have a mainstream choice.

My bet is that this R1 or whatever it ends up being called is going to be a 20MP monster that opens the door to the remaining DSLR sports and wildlife pros to make the move to mirrorless with all its benefits while still providing the small file size they love for moving things quickly along the wire.

Either way, it is what it is. Saying "no one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports" is ridiculous. They can express their opinion just as you have expressed yours and it will be just as valid but neither opinion survives as an absolute blanket statement. It's only a 'fact' to the person looking through their choice of viewfinder - whichever viewfinder that may be. At least that's how I see it.

For me, the advantages of mirrorless are beyond reproach. EVF, edge to edge auto-focus, touch and drag, crop-mode, 8K frame grab, best AF system per dollar spent, subject tracking, silent shutter, FPS, resolution - to me, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to see and sieze the advantages. Luckily for everyone that disagrees with me my opinion only has to matter to me. It isn't even remotely fact, it's just my point of view.

BTW - is your screen name based on a motorcycle preference? I'm only asking because I happen to be a GL1800 lover as well.


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 9, 2021)

Peet30 said:


> Hey Guys! RF mount you think for the Canon EOS R1?



IMO absolutely. Gotta have something to attach that upcoming big RF glass to.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 9, 2021)

Sigurd2 said:


> If shooting wildlife in crop mode for extra reach, 85MP would translate into 33MP. About the same as 90D and M6 Mark II.
> 
> So 85MP is not TO much



If 85 MP isn't too much why are you planning to crop 50MP away? 

(Asked tongue in cheek...I know the answer.)


----------



## bdeutsch (Mar 9, 2021)

I guess I'll just hold off on my plans to buy a Hasselblad X1D II. [Also CR0]


Deutsch Photography, Inc.: NYC Wedding Photographer | Actor and Corporate Headshots NYC | Family and Baby Portraits


----------



## Methodical (Mar 10, 2021)

Yeah, the price is crazy. They won't get 85 hundreds of my dollars. I don't care how much it's this or that it is. Give me some big glass instead.


----------



## Franklyok (Mar 10, 2021)

this will get hot in 5 minutes. 8k is there indeed.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 10, 2021)

bdeutsch said:


> I guess I'll just hold off on my plans to buy a Hasselblad X1D II. [Also CR0]
> 
> Deutsch Photography, Inc.: NYC Wedding Photographer | Actor and Corporate Headshots NYC | Family and Baby Portraits


A bit OT, but if you are seriously looking at a Digital MF camera, I'd suggest you give the Fuji GFX100 or the new GFX100S a serious look.<P>
Great imaging....and overall, a bit more economical, especially on the lenses and Fuji has good glass.

That GFX100S has about 99% of the older brother, but in a smaller package...and in the $6500 ballpark price range I think.

Just a suggestion that you give it a look if you are looking at digital MF systems.

I love Hassy too...I was looking hard at their offerings as that I love the old V System MF film cameras, but I'm sold right now on Fuji for MF digital.

HTH,
cayenne


----------



## deleteme (Mar 10, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'll wait until they introduce the mkII with 170MP 80fps at full res for $1800.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 10, 2021)

yeahright said:


> The microlenses above each pixel (divided into 2 for dual-pixel or - in the future - 4 sub-pixels for quad-pixel AF) are designed so that each of the subpixels covers exactly the same surface area on an in-focus subject. That is the whole point of DPAF or QPAF. Therefore, you cannot increase the resolution by simply outputting the information from every one of the sub-pixels, because you'd simply end up with 2 (resp. 4) identical images of the in-focus areas. The out-of-focus areas of the image appear shifted (to the left and right for dual pixel and to top-left / top-right / bottom-left / bottom-right for quad pixel), and the amount of shift is dependent on the distance of the out-of-focus point to the focus plane - the further away from the focus plane, the larger the shift. Furthermore, each of the sub-images only covers half (or a quarter) of the aperture. So the sub-images have less background blur than you'd get from what the aperture actually is set to, and the background (or foreground) blur in the sub-images will be shifted w.r.t. to each other (see bokeh shift function on DPRAW files). By adding the individual sub-images you get the image you'd also get without having split the pixels in the first place. I don't see that there's anything to gain w.r.t. resolution.


I admittedly am not the expert on it, but from my perspective, even if they're under the same lens, wouldn't they still have a different perspective from each other simply because they're different positions under the lens? After all a lens does have a coverage area and doesn't project exactly the same points of light across the whole coverage area it's projecting.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Mar 11, 2021)

If a mirror is missing, it has to be cheaper than the 1DX Mark III. Not having a mirror is a huge step back. I also do not want more megapixels. I never saw a low resolution as a "sacrifice" for a high frame rate, but as a real benefit. Base ISO of 160 would be horrible. That is exactly the wrong direction. ISO 80 or even ISO 64 would be a huge improvement.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 11, 2021)

Let's be clear, with Nikon's announcement of the Z9, both Sony and Nikon will have 8K pro cameras. 

There is absolutely zero chance that Canon will release a 20mp pro model with a price-tag almost twice that of the R5. I think these "crazy" rumors are actually far more in line with the R1's actual specs than anyone thinks, and Canon can totally get away with a higher price-tag if they can pack everything they can into it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Let's be clear, with Nikon's announcement of the Z9, both Sony and Nikon will have 8K pro cameras.
> 
> There is absolutely zero chance that Canon will release a 20mp pro model with a price-tag almost twice that of the R5. I think these "crazy" rumors are actually far more in line with the R1's actual specs than anyone thinks, and Canon can totally get away with a higher price-tag if they can pack everything they can into it.


I do give some merit to the 20(mp) 80 photodiode quad sensor idea. It automatically gives you two stops more dynamic range than a regular sensor, it vastly improves af performance, and if they can do some clever maths gives you oversampled 8k and depending on how they demosaic it potentially a lot more detail than the 20mp figure would suggest for stills. Also, if they averaged the four photodiodes it would be an incredible low light 20mp camera.

Potentially they can have their cake and eat it by giving the best of both worlds to everybody, new generation low light performance with modest resolution, high resolution with fast fps, and oversampled 8k for those people that live and die for video specs. Given that I think it is too much to ask...


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

csibra said:


> The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


Times change. Traditions change.


----------



## yeahright (Mar 11, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I admittedly am not the expert on it, but from my perspective, even if they're under the same lens, wouldn't they still have a different perspective from each other simply because they're different positions under the lens? After all a lens does have a coverage area and doesn't project exactly the same points of light across the whole coverage area it's projecting.


they do indeed have a different perspective - in DPAF one pixels 'sees' the right side and the other one the left side of the aperture, and therefore, they look at the scene under different angles. And this is essential for the autofocus to work, because the algorithm tries to match the images coming from the left and right pixels. If they match: focus is achieved. If they don't match, then they are either shifted to the left or to the right w.r.t. each other, and that is how the autofocus algorithm can determine whether it needs to focus nearer or further away. But the point is: when focus is achieved, the images from the left- and right pixel array are perfectly aligned (in the in-focus areas), so each left and right pixel covers the same area on the subject.


----------



## boyluck04 (Mar 11, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> It has been made clear with Canon C Suite interviews that the RP and R were placeholder models and will be phased out. The rest of the line will be numbered R models following in suit with the 1, 5, 7 lines


You means Canon will not release RP next gen?


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 11, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.


Just to be clear. If you can use a gimbal or monopod with a big white to completely follow the action of any sports, then "I do not think" a OVF ir required 100% of the time.

For sports where a gimbal or monopod would impede coverage, then a OVF is "required". 

Perhaps with advancements in technology this will change. But as of 3/2021 we have not seen or reviewed an EVF that equals an OVF for these purposes.

Please note we are talking about professional sports cameras that work in very hard environments. Water, rain, hard knocks, abusive conditions on land and sea.


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Don't confuse acquisition with delivery. 8K acquisition will render out better 4K It will let you crop and pan in post. It well let the people doing effects create better effects.
> 
> Just like the BM 12K isn't about people watching 12K .


Well said Traveler. Some people just do not get it!


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 11, 2021)

boyluck04 said:


> You means Canon will not release RP next gen?


That is what Canon implied, but I do hope they'll release a body with similar dimensions, I miss the compactness of the RP I sold when using the RF50 STM on my R5.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Indeed.
> 
> How do you put an OVF on a mirrorless camera, unless, of course, you're willing to tolerate it being off-axis?
> 
> Which, if such a thing were tolerable, would have meant no one would have bothered to invent such a kludgy thing as an SLR.


The 1DX I, II, III provide for and OVF and a digital back for live view shooting. I think we are already using the technology..... ROFL


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I do give some merit to the 20(mp) 80 photodiode quad sensor idea. It automatically gives you two stops more dynamic range than a regular sensor, it vastly improves af performance, and if they can do some clever maths gives you oversampled 8k and depending on how they demosaic it potentially a lot more detail than the 20mp figure would suggest for stills. Also, if they averaged the four photodiodes it would be an incredible low light 20mp camera.
> 
> Potentially they can have their cake and eat it by giving the best of both worlds to everybody, new generation low light performance with modest resolution, high resolution with fast fps, and oversampled 8k for those people that live and die for video specs. Given that I think it is too much to ask...



I 100% agree with you, and I think this is what makes the most sense for Canon in this "new" 8k pro market. At the very least, whatever pro camera Canon releases will have to have a 20-ish megapixel mode for the pro photographers who simply don't need the resolution. I would definitely shoot most of my general assignment R5 images at 20 megapixels if there was an option for a raw, 20 megapixel output. 

At the same time, if the R1 also was able to do 80 megapixels, that's a huge added value for portrait and landscape work when 80 megapixels is a bonus. Add to that, it would be totally possible to switch between a full sensor 20 megapixel low light mode and a 30 megapixel 1.6x crop mode, which also would help make the R1 into an absolutely excellent camera for wildlife/birding photographers, on top of news and sports photographers. It would truly be a no-compromise pro model across the board, and I think a ~$7500+ price tag would be survivable for the people who could replace multiple cameras with one.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 11, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> The 1DX I, II, III provide for and OVF and a digital back for live view shooting. I think we are already using the technology..... ROFL



Those aren't mirrorless cameras. Your original comment was demanding that the R1 have an OVF. ROFL indeed.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Those aren't mirrorless cameras. Your original comment was demanding that the R1 have an OVF. ROFL indeed.


I think the RI will meet most expectations, If they provide an EVF that does not meet the standards of the 1DXMKIII, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## csibra (Mar 11, 2021)

boyluck04 said:


> You means Canon will not release RP next gen?


There was rumors that some fullframe is coming under RP price. I thint that will replace the RP "line".


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 11, 2021)

yeahright said:


> they do indeed have a different perspective - in DPAF one pixels 'sees' the right side and the other one the left side of the aperture, and therefore, they look at the scene under different angles. And this is essential for the autofocus to work, because the algorithm tries to match the images coming from the left and right pixels. If they match: focus is achieved. If they don't match, then they are either shifted to the left or to the right w.r.t. each other, and that is how the autofocus algorithm can determine whether it needs to focus nearer or further away. But the point is: when focus is achieved, the images from the left- and right pixel array are perfectly aligned (in the in-focus areas), so each left and right pixel covers the same area on the subject.


That makes sense. So if they weren't to combine a quad AF array, then the areas of the image that were in perfect focus wouldn't really gain much additional spatial detail, but, as the parts of the image started to fall out of focus, they could potentially extract additional spatial detail during de-mosaic. OK.

I wonder how the anti-aliasing filter would affect this.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> It will literally be the last camera you buy, you'll be paying it off till you fall over dead and then come after your family for the balance.



When the 1D X debuted in 2012 it was $6,799 in the U.S.

$6,799 USD in 2012 is worth $7,789 today. 

By the time the R1 is actually shipped, $6,799 from March, 2012 may be actually worth almost $8,000.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

Billybob said:


> How does that explain anything? Unless you have documentation or quotes from Sony decision makers, causation is very difficult to prove. The A7r4 was announced ten or more months before the R5. "I suspect companies always want to be first on the market." More than likely--and just as good an explanation--Sony had produced a workable high MP sensor and wanted to take the high-MP crown from Nikon (remember, Nikon held the crown for awhile at 45.7MP). Similarly with the A1. The A1 is the camera the A9II should have been (my opinion), but the 50MP stacked sensor just wasn't ready. Now it's ready, so the A1 is released. Thus, rather than a "quick" release, the A1 is actually 15-16 months late.
> 
> Do I have inside knowledge to support this hypothesis? No, but my explanation is at least as good as yours and far more compelling.



Aren't you forgetting the 50MP 5Ds/5Ds R?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> Why they never did it with dual pixel?



Because rectangles instead of squares?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't know why so many people are shocked at the price. I think I paid near that for my EOS-1Ds Mk I MkII and MkIII.



$7,999 USD in 2002 had the same spending power as $11,695 USD today.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

Baxter2020 said:


> The only thing that comes close is the list price of US$ 8.500  Good luck Canon....



That's less spending power in 2021 than $7,999 for the 1Ds way back in 2002. That $7,999 had spending power equal to $11,695 in 2021 dollars.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

eosbob said:


> The 1DX Mk III is going for $6499 and I bought my Mk II for $5699. $8500 is not near those prices. Hell, you could buy any 1D X and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for less and still get tack sharp images. It will have to be a banger of a camera before I would even think about it, and even then I would want to wait for at least 6 months to see how it goes. Think I will just buy a Mk III. I already have an R5 for high res shots.



Let's see: $5,699 + $3,799 = $9,498

Or you could buy one that can do what both can do for only $7,499.

Hmm....


----------



## Billybob (Mar 13, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Aren't you forgetting the 50MP 5Ds/5Ds R?


Definitely. Soon after writing the above, I remembered those lenses, but didn't go back and edit because the point was the same. If you like, just replace Nikon with Canon. Either way, the A7RIV took the crown and still holds it. But other than bragging rights, neither the A7RIV nor the Canon 5Ds twins particularly impress. Neither camera really delivered on the promise that their higher resolution sensor suggested. Yes, you can detect some resolution improvements, but you really have to work at it. I think that we'll need a 90MP (or greater) sensor before we actually see a perceptible improvement in resolution.


----------



## Nigel95 (Mar 13, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> That's less spending power in 2021 than $7,999 for the 1Ds way back in 2002. That $7,999 had spending power equal to $11,695 in 2021 dollars.


However most incomes of individuals didn't increase by 46% about those who worked in 2002 and are still working now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> show me a link for $200 16TB hard drives. I would love to buy them!



New Egg had the Western Digital Elements 12TB external HD on sale for $199 this past week. Not 16TB, but that's still only $16.60 per TB!


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

Nigel95 said:


> However most incomes of individuals didn't increase by 46% about those who worked in 2002 and are still working now.



That all depends upon where one is working, and what one is doing there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

IggyMo said:


> At first, this whole 21mp and 85mp makes no sense, but when you start thinking, it kind of does.
> Let me explain.
> 
> On a normal 20 mp sensor, you have 20 million diodes. each pixel is covered with the bayer pattern which identifies every single pixel as either green, blue or red.
> ...


 
Or, rather than do all of those debayering calculations, you could just make the Bayer mask the size of the diodes and use conventional debayering for 84MP and use pixel binning for 21MP. No real debayering needed, only color channel multipliers to adjust WB.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?
> 
> A 21mp quad sensor would have 84 million photodiodes but according to Canon themselves, in it's current format/definition, would still only be a 21mp sensor.
> 
> ...



Because rectangles vs. squares?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> You can always limit the number.



Can you? It seems the R5 can't be set to shoot slower than 20 fps in electronic shutter mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I 100% agree with you, and I think this is what makes the most sense for Canon in this "new" 8k pro market. At the very least, whatever pro camera Canon releases will have to have a 20-ish megapixel mode for the pro photographers who simply don't need the resolution. I would definitely shoot most of my general assignment R5 images at 20 megapixels if there was an option for a raw, 20 megapixel output.
> 
> At the same time, if the R1 also was able to do 80 megapixels, that's a huge added value for portrait and landscape work when 80 megapixels is a bonus. Add to that, it would be totally possible to switch between a full sensor 20 megapixel low light mode and a 30 megapixel 1.6x crop mode, which also would help make the R1 into an absolutely excellent camera for wildlife/birding photographers, on top of news and sports photographers. It would truly be a no-compromise pro model across the board, and I think a ~$7500+ price tag would be survivable for the people who could replace multiple cameras with one.



The problem with replacing multiple cameras with one is when you want to hang two different lenses on them at the same time...


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2021)

boyluck04 said:


> You means Canon will not release RP next gen?



If they do, it will be called something like the R9 or R20.


----------



## Nigel95 (Mar 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> That all depends upon where one is working, and what one is doing there.


Pretty sure for the masses this increase in salary didn't happen. Purchasing power doesn't keep up with inflation for decades in many countries.


----------



## tcphoto (Mar 14, 2021)

Someone has way too much time on his hands...


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 14, 2021)

Just had a talk with a "Canon Explorer". Don't expect the R1 to compete with the Sony A1, Nikon Z or even the Canon R5 from a resolution perspective.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 14, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Just had a talk with a "Canon Explorer". Don't expect the R1 to compete with the Sony A1, Nikon Z or even the Canon R5 from a resolution perspective.



I wouldn't; the 1 series has historically been firmly wedded to lower-than-possible resolutions. If someone were to look ONLY at that (as the typical consumer has been invited to do), they'd wonder what the heck Canon is thinking calling it a flagship camera and charging that much for it.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 14, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I wouldn't; the 1 series has historically been firmly wedded to lower-than-possible resolutions. If someone were to look ONLY at that (as the typical consumer has been invited to do), they'd wonder what the heck Canon is thinking calling it a flagship camera and charging that much for it.


Hi, I don't think that's the ONLY thing we're looking at, but not a blind eye. With the advancements in the market today from sony, nikon, fuji I don't think many will tollerate dumbed down resolution any longer. Not somone who would have to spend $50K+ to transition over.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 14, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Hi, I don't think that's the ONLY thing we're looking at, but not a blind eye. With the advancements in the market today from sony, nikon, fuji I don't think many will tollerate dumbed down resolution any longer. Not somone who would have to spend $50K+ to transition over.



We're not "typical consumers" and many were willing to do 20MP for the other benefits; in fact many found that a positive benefit.

Whether A) your attitude is typical in the 1-series customer base (maybe most disagree with you) and B) Canon recognizes this, will make a marked difference in what happens.


----------



## john1970 (Mar 14, 2021)

Some interesting recent post. Given Adobe's recently announced 'Super Resolution' enhancement mode I am curious on what Canon is going to release for the R1. Once Canon updates the R5 firmware with Canon RAW light and Canon Log 3 they will, in my opinion, have a decent 8K EOS R camera. For the R1 I would rather see a lower MP body (between 24-30 MP) with solid dynamic range, quad-pixel AF, a global shutter, and world-class high ISO noise performance. I suspect we will know the answer by Q3 2021 with a release in Q4 2021 to Q1 2022.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 14, 2021)

SteveC said:


> We're not "typical consumers" and many were willing to do 20MP for the other benefits; in fact many found that a positive benefit.
> 
> Whether A) your attitude is typical in the 1-series customer base (maybe most disagree with you) and B) Canon recognizes this, will make a marked difference in what happens.


No I'm not a typical consumer I work for one of the largest sports agencies in the world. I would be replacing 24 kits and for us that's 56 bodies and their associated glass.

There is (are) no benefit(s) of a governed or limited 20MP that cannot be adjusted while shooting.

This technology has been in camera since the 1DX and its very simple to shoot at a reduced file size in RAW and JPG. This 20MP, straw dog or red harring is played out. If someone wants to shoot at 20MP let them perhaps they want to shoot at 8MP, let them. But there is no reason to limit the resolution any longer, that thinking and technology was even in the original 1DX in 2011/2

One has to wonder why people don't look at A1, R5, Nikon z, and even the 1DXMKIII and realize decreasing file size is eazy on "the buffer" ROFL.

It's about time our industry matured with equipment that is comprehensive.


----------



## PerKr (Mar 15, 2021)

ok, so given that the Z9 will supposedly do 8K and have a stacked sensor... Let's just assume it (the Z9) will rival the Sony A1 overall. Then the R1 needs to pretty much match that. I for one expect it will. If it was to be slower with lower resolution and a higher pricetag, that would be like when Sony released the A900 without video capabilities just when the Canon 5DmkII came out (except the Sony A900 at least had a price advantage)


----------



## cayenne (Mar 15, 2021)

Nigel95 said:


> Pretty sure for the masses this increase in salary didn't happen. Purchasing power doesn't keep up with inflation for decades in many countries.


True, but the R1 is not a camera meant for "the masses".....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Can you? It seems the R5 can't be set to shoot slower than 20 fps in electronic shutter mode.


I haven't yet bought the R5 so I can't answer that but all I would care about is the number in a burst. If Canon doesn't allow that control, it's an oversight or bad design.

Jack


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 1, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> Someone has way too much time on his hands...



Someone else needs to mind their own business. I don't tell you how to budget your time. You don't need to waste your time worrying about how I spend mine on the one or two days a month I even visit this site.


----------



## bernie_king (Apr 18, 2021)

Maybe not so crazy anymore... If the R3 is 45mp + this could actually be close.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Apr 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Can you? It seems the R5 can't be set to shoot slower than 20 fps in electronic shutter mode.



Can limit in non-electronic. However they really need to come out with a firmware that lets you set the limit in electronic.


----------



## GoldWing (Apr 21, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> No I'm not a typical consumer I work for one of the largest sports agencies in the world. I would be replacing 24 kits and for us that's 56 bodies and their associated glass.
> 
> There is (are) no benefit(s) of a governed or limited 20MP that cannot be adjusted while shooting.
> 
> ...


Hi 100% of the pro sports photographers I know and work 


GoldWing said:


> No I'm not a typical consumer I work for one of the largest sports agencies in the world. I would be replacing 24 kits and for us that's 56 bodies and their associated glass.
> 
> There is (are) no benefit(s) of a governed or limited 20MP that cannot be adjusted while shooting.
> 
> ...


Hi 100% of the sports photogs I know, work with and work for our agency would welcome the oppty for enhanced resolution and be able to choose the file size. No one!!! Not one single person said "I don't want greater resolution and the ability to choose when I want to use it".


----------



## BakaBokeh (Apr 21, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Hi 100% of the pro sports photographers I know and work
> 
> Hi 100% of the sports photogs I know, work with and work for our agency would welcome the oppty for enhanced resolution and be able to choose the file size. No one!!! Not one single person said "I don't want greater resolution and the ability to choose when I want to use it".


You'd be surprised. Some here get irrationally angry when you give them options that they can just turn off if they don't want to use it.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2021)

Finally, a camera that’s useful. No more worries when a model decides she needs to blink. Thank you, Canon.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 26, 2021)

I wonder if with todays tech it would be possible to do deep focus tech to R1.
R5 got some sensor deepness ,if i remember right there was mode with two diferently focused frame option from one picture.
Now if Global shutter R1 can divide longer exposures to shorter segments, is it possible track single photons tracks on segment like 1/1000 s or 1/10000s.?
i mean if can get info where photon hits surface of sensor and where it hits to lower layer, can get knowledge about photons flying angle.
When knowing photon track angles can do picture where everything is sharp .Like sensor shift.
How many milliard or billion photons hits to sensor when doing exposure? How big computer is needed to postprocess all that data


----------



## pape2 (Apr 26, 2021)

pape2 said:


> I wonder if with todays tech it would be possible to do deep focus tech to R1.
> R5 got some sensor deepness ,if i remember right there was mode with two diferently focused frame option from one picture.
> Now if Global shutter R1 can divide longer exposures to shorter segments, is it possible track single photons tracks on segment like 1/1000 s or 1/10000s.?
> i mean if can get info where photon hits surface of sensor and where it hits to lower layer, can get knowledge about photons flying angle.
> ...


OK i lost scale ,they getting perfectly sharp pictures with 1/10000s ,means billions photons hitting sensor. no way track them.
And anyway million times easier use stacked sensor data for this.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 8, 2021)

ND filters feel like a waste of light to be. They filter away 99.9% of the light, but none of the noise. If you could still catch all that like and then devide it by 1000 afterwards, you would als devide the noise by 1000.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 11, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> ND filters feel like a waste of light to be. They filter away 99.9% of the light, but none of the noise. If you could still catch all that like and then devide it by 1000 afterwards, you would als devide the noise by 1000.


With an ND filter, you can shoot at a much wider aperture and long shutters and not blowing up the exposure.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 11, 2021)

kaihp said:


> With an ND filter, you can shoot at a much wider aperture and long shutters and not blowing up the exposure.


Or to put that another way, if your exposure has blown highlights, dividing by 1000 as skyscraperfan suggests, would simply lead to uniform dark gray areas where the blown highlights were before.

It also uses up ten stops of dynamic range.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Or to put that another way, if your exposure has blown highlights, dividing by 1000 as skyscraperfan suggests, would simply lead to uniform dark gray areas where the blown highlights were before.
> 
> It also uses up ten stops of dynamic range.



Using ND filters gives you the option to make artistic pictures with a very long shutter and a very shallow depth of field. You may not like it, but some of us do.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 12, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Using ND filters gives you the option to make artistic pictures with a very long shutter and a very shallow depth of field. You may not like it, but some of us do.


Oh, I understand perfectly what an ND would be a good thing in some circumstances! (I was trying to support what you said. If that was unclear I apologize.) 

One typical use case is those long exposures of waterfalls to blur the water. (Not necessarily done wide open, shallow depth of field, but definitely done with a long exposure.) I've never tried to do this, if only because of there not being a lot of waterfalls near where I live.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 12, 2021)

Holy smokes this got extremely off topic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Holy smokes this got extremely off topic.


I disagree. The thread title has the word ‘crazy’ in it, I think that means all bets are off.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 12, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I was trying to support what you said. If that was unclear I apologize.


Sorry, I definitely missed that. My bad. I should take more care to read and understand, before replying.


----------



## AEWest (Nov 12, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Holy smokes this got extremely off topic.


Welcome to Canon Rumors forum.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 13, 2021)

csibra said:


> The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.


Could be 85M photo sites, or 21.2MP.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 13, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Could be 85M photo sites, or 21.2MP.


Well, 85M photo sites would still be a claimed "85M pixels" since Canon (& most everyone) use a Bayer filter and extrapolate colors so each site now has full color reported as their "85 MPixel sensor resolution". The R5 has 45M photo sites, and they extrapolate it to 45MPixels, so they won't be changing that.

However, some of Canon's photo sites are called "dual-pixel" and in the future might be called "quad pixel" , for AF purposes. I don't know if this applies to every photo-site across the entire sensor or just for the much smaller number of declared AF points on it. If it was "quad-pixel AF" on each photo site of the entire sensor, then I could see them calling each of the 4 sites (of the quad-pixel) as a published number as a way to increase their claimed marketing numbers 4 fold to increase bragging rights, since they could just claim "85M" when they actually boil it down to 21.2 MPixels.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 13, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.


After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 13, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.


That's a very clever idea, nice.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 13, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> That's a very clever idea, nice.


Thanks, LSXPhotog. But I'm sure it's one that many have thought of before, including Nikon. I assume that a protective curtain was something they already had and it was very cheap (it looks like a mechanical shutter only used for protective purposes and not for photography, so it's kind of "funny" to say they no longer have a mechanical shutter). A full frame high quality ND filter that had to travel in place and out-of-the-way would take up a lot of space, engineering & cost that they probably didn't want to deal with. Canon might feel the same.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Or to put that another way, if your exposure has blown highlights, dividing by 1000 as skyscraperfan suggests, would simply lead to uniform dark gray areas where the blown highlights were before.
> 
> It also uses up ten stops of dynamic range.


Not necessarily.
It depends on where the dynamic range of the camera lies.
Whatever would have gotten blown out was not in the dynamic range of the camera.
Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.


Global shutters are coming.
It is just a matter of time.
Lok could not detect any noticeable rolling shutter effects during still photos but they were clearly noticeable during video.
Lok only had a Z 9 for a short period of time so it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any real-world situations where still photos show rolling shutter effects.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.


Exactly. They don’t reduce the dynamic range they simply shift the portion of the scene DR that the camera DR captures. For example, when shooting outdoor portraits at f/1.2-f/2, I usually use a 3-stop ND, because a 1/8000 s shutter speed still gives blown highlights (although the 1/64000 e-shutter of the R3 will give me that 3 stops without the filter).

A 10-stop ND is often used at metered exposure, i.e., determine the exposure without the filter the filter and use it shutter speed that’s 10 stops. In that case, there is no difference in the DR. I typically use a 10-stop ND for shooting architecture in populated settings so the long exposure blurs out people who walk through the frame.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. They don’t reduce the dynamic range they simply shift the portion of the scene DR that the camera DR captures. For example, when shooting outdoor portraits at f/1.2-f/2, I usually use a 3-stop ND, because a 1/8000 s shutter speed still gives blown highlights (although the 1/64000 e-shutter of the R3 will give me that 3 stops without the filter).
> 
> A 10-stop ND is often used at metered exposure, i.e., determine the exposure without the filter the filter and use it shutter speed that’s 10 stops. In that case, there is no difference in the DR. I typically use a 10-stop ND for shooting architecture in populated settings so the long exposure blurs out people who walk through the frame.


I'm just curious - do you find that most of your ND use is 3-stop or 10-stop (or some other)? Which would you suggest for landscapes with waterfalls where you want the smooth blurred water effects often seen in calendar pictures?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I'm just curious - do you find that most of your ND use is 3-stop or 10-stop (or some other)? Which would you suggest for landscapes with waterfalls where you want the smooth blurred water effects often seen in calendar pictures?


As a general rule for me:

Outdoor portraits with an f/2 or faster lens, 3-stop ND
Waterfalls, 6-stop ND (or a 3-stop ND stacked with a CPL, which gives a total of ~4.75 stops)
Blurring out moving subjects in a static scene, 10-stop ND
I have shot waterfalls with a 10-stop ND, but had to raise the ISO to ~800 and sometimes open up the aperture a bit to get exposures in the 4-6 second range that I usually use for that subject.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As a general rule for me:
> 
> Outdoor portraits with an f/2 or faster lens, 3-stop ND
> Waterfalls, 6-stop ND (or a 3-stop ND stacked with a CPL, which gives a total of ~4.75 stops)
> ...


Thanks, neuroanatomist!


----------



## SteveC (Nov 21, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not necessarily.
> It depends on where the dynamic range of the camera lies.
> Whatever would have gotten blown out was not in the dynamic range of the camera.
> Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.


I was arguing FOR the use of ND filters, and _against_ post-processing divide by 1000. You seem to agree with me. Or did I misunderstand your point?


----------

