# IBIS and 100mp coming to an EOS R camera? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2019)

> Our friends over at Northlight received some information about a possible upcoming EOS R camera. After some direct communication between us, there appears to be some validity to the information.
> First up, this is another source pointing to the inclusion of IBIS on an upcoming EOS R body. We were told previously that the IBIS system simply wasn’t ready for the EOS R release, though there were prototypes with IBIS floating around during testing. It’s safe to say that Canon will embrace IBIS in an upcoming release.
> Secondly, is a 100mp EOS R in the pipeline? It’s highly possible. We’ve been told that Canon scrapped the development of an EOS 5DS/R follow-up and that their next high megapixel camera will be for the EOS R system. I don’t think we’ll see such a camera until 2020, as I believe there need to be some more native RF lenses announced to handle landscape and studio shooters.



Continue reading...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 12, 2019)

I suppose that IBIS may be a benefit for a 100 MP camera, it will likely need it. I think that lenses like the RF 28-70 would benefit at 100 MP and ordinary shutter speeds.


----------



## rjbradbury (Jan 12, 2019)

Was hoping for another 5Ds DSLR body myself. But time will tell what they actually do.


----------



## edoorn (Jan 12, 2019)

I am a bit puzzled here; I thought at first it was said it was likely 2019 sees a pro-R body; most likely the one with high m'pix?


----------



## captainkanji (Jan 12, 2019)

I hope it comes in at under $4,000. I’m eager to try out a high MP body for my trip.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 12, 2019)

Now this is a rumour that makes me sit up and notice. Give me the same capabilities as my 5DS without the mirror and send me off to the woods.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 12, 2019)

edoorn said:


> I am a bit puzzled here; I thought at first it was said it was likely 2019 sees a pro-R body; most likely the one with high m'pix?



The pro-R body will not likely be the really high MP body as high MP is somewhat of a niche product. Note that the pro-DSLR (1D line) has a comparatively low MP and the 5D line has a middle of the road MP total. That is the MP range (low to middle) that the majority of pros apparently prefer.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 12, 2019)

This reads more like an obvious prediction of where the camera has to go, because the entire market is headed in that direction.
I hope Canon puts IBIS as soon as it is ready, it has been a very long wait for a competitive small mirrorless dual purpose video/still camera, and IBIS is one of the missing features. Add a decent 4K implementation and we're off to the races!


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 12, 2019)

IBIS sounds good. 
100 MP is not my market.


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 12, 2019)

edoorn said:


> I am a bit puzzled here; I thought at first it was said it was likely 2019 sees a pro-R body; most likely the one with high m'pix?



afaik official sources said the next mirrorless FF will be an entry level model.

only rumor sites wrote the next one will be a pro model.


----------



## colorblinded (Jan 12, 2019)

IBIS and you have my attention, 100mp and I'll probably wait for another camera with IBIS and lower resolution.

That said if the quality is good from the smaller RAW output options and they hit resolutions I need, and the dynamic range is solid...

Maybe I'm still interested.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 12, 2019)

When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.

So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy. 

Is this important for most people? Of course not. But there are certain tasks, such as high resolution reproduction of artworks or natural objects, where capturing the finest detail accurately is important, and for that a 100 megapixel EOS R can't come soon enough!

Of course at 100megapixels diffraction is going to be a real bitch, but that's another thing altogether!


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 12, 2019)

Mirror: bad.
Pixels: good.
Stabilization: good.

What's not to like?

(I'm certain CR posters will tell me!)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

I take it that this is not the rumoured “low end” R.......


----------



## jeanluc (Jan 12, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> afaik official sources said the next mirrorless FF will be an entry level model.
> 
> only rumor sites wrote the next one will be a pro model.


I really hope if they do go to that high of a resolution that the sensor tech to back it up is there. Specifically DR. With files that size, it will fill cards like crazy and liberal bracketing will be much less convenient as a work around. Otherwise we wil have the same situation we had with the 5dsr...the highest resolution, but older sensor tech with lots of shadow noise compared to the competition and even the 5d4. Why not just make a 50 mp version that uses a state of the art sensor? I love my high mp bodies, but 100mp starts to decrease the general usability IMHO and we will be left with a niche MP body with OK performance and no A7R “equivalent” body again.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 12, 2019)

Of course the amusing thing is that a 100mpx sensor would be able to record 8K video with an 1.6x crop


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 12, 2019)

captainkanji said:


> I hope it comes in at under $4,000. I’m eager to try out a high MP body for my trip.


That sounds unlikely


----------



## jeanluc (Jan 12, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> That sounds unlikely


Well, if they make this it sure will be a high MP body....hopefully one that actually is somewhat practical...


----------



## tmc784 (Jan 12, 2019)

Could be $5000+ body only, I can't afford.


----------



## jalbfb (Jan 12, 2019)

When the EOS-R came out I was glad that Canon finally got into the higher end mirrorless game and the new RF lenses looked great. However, I did not abandon my 5D4 and rush to switch to mirrorless. I am waiting for the next version or two to come out. A 100mp sensor is not something practical for my use but I suspect that there will be other models that are an upgrade from the 5D4 (EOS-R) that will be more pro like but with a MP sensor in between what is out now and the reported 100mp. At least I hope so. Also price will be a limiting factor for me.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 12, 2019)

I note it was mentioned as 100+MP, not 100MP in what we were told (which was mainly referring to Canon not pursuing medium format any more)

If this camera is real, it likely won't come until after something at, shall we say, 5D mk4/mk5 level gets launched as a 'pro' model. That should address many of the desires for video and a better EOS R

As to complaints about filling cards and image size - suggests that this is not the camera you were looking for ;-) 
It reminds me of many of the 5Ds complaints coming from people who probably should have got a 5D4, the 5Ds seemed a niche product from the start.

My pet hope for 100+MP and IBIS combination is a multishot mode using the IBIS to help reduce the bayer filtration loss of data (and moire). Absolutely great for those of us using the 5Ds in relatively static scenarios on a hefty tripod, whilst the IBIS would help for when I'm shooting hand held, which is nowhere nearly as bad with the 5Ds as some would suggest (usually people not trying it BTW)


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jan 12, 2019)

dak723 said:


> The pro-R body will not likely be the really high MP body as high MP is somewhat of a niche product. Note that the pro-DSLR (1D line) has a comparatively low MP and the 5D line has a middle of the road MP total. That is the MP range (low to middle) that the majority of pros apparently prefer.



A Sports Pro (1D) body will most likely have 20-24mp. I wouldn't mind a 4mp bump from my 1DX2 but it certainly is not a deal breaker if Canon sticks with 20mp. I actually like the form factor of the 1DX2, not entirely sure how a mirrorless version would benefit me much


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 12, 2019)

edoorn said:


> I am a bit puzzled here; I thought at first it was said it was likely 2019 sees a pro-R body; most likely the one with high m'pix?


Rumors are just that. This is a rumor, not some sort of promise. the rumored pro model may or may not happen, it would not be 100 MP though. A 100MP body is a specialist tool, at least for now. Sony has or is coming out with a 60-70 MP sensor, so Canon wants to top that. I expect Canon to put out 2 R bodies a year until there are models from low to high.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Rumors are just that. This is a rumor, not some sort of promise. the rumored pro model may or may not happen, it would not be 100 MP though. A 100MP body is a specialist tool, at least for now. Sony has or is coming out with a 60-70 MP sensor, so Canon wants to top that. I expect Canon to put out 2 R bodies a year until there are models from low to high.


My thoughts too!

There will be many more bodies in the pipeline, a low price intro model, a 5D equivalent, a 1D equivalent, and a high megapixel body. It will take a couple of years for them all to show up at your local camera store, but in the meantime rumours will fly and some people will get very upset because whatever comes next is not their perfect camera


----------



## docsmith (Jan 12, 2019)

For me, the first thing I will look at if this is ever released will be the file size of mRAW and sRAW. If they are something like 25 MB and 50 MB, I could be tempted by this camera and typically shoot in one of those modes with occasionally breaking out the full RAW resolution of 100 MP.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 12, 2019)

Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't. Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.


----------



## addola (Jan 12, 2019)

I would much rather have better higher ISO performance, and dynamic range. Canon cameras usually have better DR than Nikon at higher ISO. The 5D Mk IV beats Nikon D810 from ISO > 200 and is very close to D850 from ISO800 up (according to DXO data). So it looks like Nikon cameras typically have "optimized" dynamic range at lower ISO64 & ISO100. A high megapixel Canon camera should be optimized for better dynamic range at lower ISO, which is where you would want to shoot that camera for landscape, and studio shots. 

I hope Canon's implementation of IBIS is as good as on MFT cameras from Panasonic & Olympus. Personally I am more interested in stills resolution from 24MP to less than or equal 50MP so that the file sizes would be manageable. But IBIS would definitely help with video work.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 12, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.
> 
> So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy.
> 
> ...



The best camera for high res imaging of art and natural objects is a scanning back. Accurate color, mad resolution, and minimal diffraction issues.
Of course no flash and minimal portability but then for that niche it is less important.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 12, 2019)

addola said:


> I would much rather have better higher ISO performance, and dynamic range. Canon cameras usually have better DR than Nikon at higher ISO. The 5D Mk IV beats Nikon D810 from ISO > 200 and is very close to D850 from ISO800 up (according to DXO data). So it looks like Nikon cameras typically have "optimized" dynamic range at lower ISO64 & ISO100. A high megapixel Canon camera should be optimized for better dynamic range at lower ISO, which is where you would want to shoot that camera for landscape, and studio shots.
> 
> I hope Canon's implementation of IBIS is as good as on MFT cameras from Panasonic & Olympus. Personally I am more interested in stills resolution from 24MP to less than or equal 50MP so that the file sizes would be manageable. But IBIS would definitely help with video work.



Precisely. I have no need for 50+ mpx camera. I print 24 x 36 on 30 mpx Canon 5D IV and it's plenty. I'd rather have Canon concentrate on ISO, dynamic range, eyeAF, dual IS 

I hope the EOS R pro delivered. I have already contemplate on Panasonic S1 and possibly Sony next FF mirroless A9II/A7RIV.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 12, 2019)

100MP is a niche that few will inhabit. 
I rarely use my 5DsR because at the sizes I need (even large repro) a well done 30MP R image does the job superbly.
Wrestling the files of the DsR is a pain, 100MP would be enraging.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 12, 2019)

I suspect that Canon will fill its pipeline with more mainstream bodies first, but niche bodies are possible later for the bragging rights. I’m not getting upset by rumors of this body which would likely be at least two or three years away.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 12, 2019)

addola said:


> I would much rather have better higher ISO performance, and dynamic range. Canon cameras usually have better DR than Nikon at higher ISO. The 5D Mk IV beats Nikon D810 from ISO > 200 and is very close to D850 from ISO800 up (according to DXO data). So it looks like Nikon cameras typically have "optimized" dynamic range at lower ISO64 & ISO100. A high megapixel Canon camera should be optimized for better dynamic range at lower ISO, which is where you would want to shoot that camera for landscape, and studio shots.
> 
> I hope Canon's implementation of IBIS is as good as on MFT cameras from Panasonic & Olympus. Personally I am more interested in stills resolution from 24MP to less than or equal 50MP so that the file sizes would be manageable. But IBIS would definitely help with video work.



I think we are very close to minimal additional improvements.The conversations about noise and DR are somewhat overblown as the differences seem to have small impact. It is hard to believe that everyone needs to stretch their files into such unrecognizable shape that magical DR (that actually doesn't exist) will save their lives.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

Hmmmmm......

Take a 100Mpixel sensor, use the IBIS system to pixel shift, and presto whammo, you now have a 400Mpixel cat picture to post on Facebook


----------



## Talys (Jan 12, 2019)

The real use for me with a 100 megapixel camera would be to get more reach out of existing lenses, or to be able to use smaller lenses, for birding and other wildlife photography. So, what it comes down to is, are two things: first, how good are heavily cropped photos? Secondly, when a 100 megapixel image is taken under ideal lighting and reduced down to 5 megapixels or so, how much better or worse is it compared to a 30-ish megapixel camera reduced down to 5-10 megapixels?

In reality, every single time, a 1DX with the ideal focal length lens (ie no cropping required) reduced down to print or screen resolutions produces better results than a camera with a lot more megapixels and a lens with a lot less focal length.

So, will the 100 megapixel camera change this dynamic at all?

If so, a 100 megapixel _mirrorless_ could be a wonderful tool. For example, I can imagine that it could have a crop mode that would turn it into a 25 megapixel camera, using only the center 1/4 of the image circle at very high pixel density, yet filling up the EVF.

Only time will tell if what I'm wishing for is simply a pipe dream, or a possibility. But, these are exciting times!

Regarding IBIS: I still don't really care, but it would be wonderful just to shut up the people who go on and on about how the R doesn't have IBIS.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2019)

Talys said:


> ...For example, I can imagine that it could have a crop mode that would turn it into a 25 megapixel camera, using only the center 1/4 of the image circle at very high pixel density, yet filling up the EVF...



That's an interesting thought, because one of the biggest problems I find when choosing between a crop sensor and a full frame sensor is getting accurate focus on the larger sensor. The maginification of the crop sensor can make it easier to nail the focus when distance limited (I'm talking about situations where even with a crop sensor you need to crop the image by 50% or more.) I hadn't thought about the advantage of an EVF that would allow you to magnify the image in the viewfinder.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2019)

One of the interesting things about technological revolutions is that a product can come to market without the manufacturer really knowing whether or not it will be an attractive feature and then consumers invent new/innovative uses for the feature. Cameras in cell phones, for example, were something of an afterthought I believe. But once they were added, people found them so useful and desirable that now they are chief feature of most cellphones. Same with DSLR video. From what I have read, Canon had no idea when they added it to the 5DII that it would revolutionize the video world.

I can see Canon putting a 100 mp camera out in the market without necessarily knowing exactly what the demand is and then watching as buyers invent new uses for the high megapixel images.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 12, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't. Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.


I'll remember that next time I stitch several 5Ds images to get the resolution I need for a shot. 
I just try and remember that just because a feature is of no use to me, it may well be to others - I personally put video, wifi and GPS in this category... YMMV


----------



## saveyourmoment (Jan 12, 2019)

actually you need ibis to take quite sharp photos with a 100mp sensor. even fujifilm 100s has that, because you will not be able to take sharp photos handheld with 100mp sensor(or at least you need really steady hands and good breathcontrol).

but 2020? So I will stop renting the gfx 50s and go all in for fujifilm. sorry canon. too late.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 12, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> I'll remember that next time I stitch several 5Ds images to get the resolution I need for a shot.
> I just try and remember that just because a feature is of no use to me, it may well be to others - I personally put video, wifi and GPS in this category... YMMV


Stitching counts as adding another pizza. 

Not discounting your need and I'm sure you're more experienced at building high res images than I am. However, I think there's an open question regarding how much addition benefit you get by going to smaller and smaller photocells on 135 format sensors. I'm not convinced that solution won't create more problems than it solves but I freely admit that I don't know where the tipping point is. I'm guessing it's less than 100 MP but I suppose we won't know until somebody puts an ultra high res sensor out there.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 12, 2019)

Yes, I'm also curious as to performance from such a large number of photo sites on a 35mm sensor. 

I guess it would need to be DPAF too...


----------



## jvillain (Jan 12, 2019)

>"I expect Canon to put out 2 R bodies a year until there are models from low to high."

Considering how many DSLR models Canon makes they are going to have to up their game beyond that unless the plan is to massively consolidate their line up. The alternative is decadal refreshes for cameras which the 7D guys will tell you seems to be the current plan. They also risk their model naming scheme becoming irrelevant ala the M5/M50 or 7D or 77D/80D for that matter. It doesn't matter which one is supposed to be the king if the refresh rate becomes to long.

They farcked around and farked around on the EOS DSLR side for so long while they got the C series, M series and the R series out the door that they don't really have room to keep coasting any more. To put it another way they have used up their buffer space. They can choose to put their feet up on the desk, light a cigar, drink some scotch and gaze at their navel. But the competition is fighting for their lives and are going to keep pushing ahead. The Canon name won't carry the kind of premium price Canon takes for granted if every thing they release is a few years behind the competition and focused on just copying tech after every one else has already adopted it and it is no longer note worthy, especially since they seem to have a team at Canon dedicated to crippling every thing they release. 

The competition has been catching up to and even surpassing Canon on auto focus and color science. The need to buy Canon so I could get good lenses greatly diminished when Sigma and other third parties started upping their game and releasing native mounts for other systems. I don't need to buy Canon for compatibility with lighting systems since third party lighting companies started producing triggers for almost all the competitors cameras. IMO the only 2 things Canon has going for it at this point are ergonomics which the Fuji and Nikon guys would argue against and the world wide support system only available to high end professionals. 

I am looking at the R but I can get as good or better from Fuji for half the price. The cost of lenses used to be the thing to keep me back from switching but Canon seems to think they are entitled to a whole new price premium with the R system which now makes Fuji glass look cheap. The question is why choose Canon in 2019? Canon needs a 100MP IBIS camera even if they only sell one so they can say they are still relevant for people looking towards the future. If your 80 that won't matter. If you just starting your photography career it matters a lot.


----------



## Juangrande (Jan 12, 2019)

saveyourmoment said:


> actually you need ibis to take quite sharp photos with a 100mp sensor. even fujifilm 100s has that, because you will not be able to take sharp photos handheld with 100mp sensor(or at least you need really steady hands and good breathcontrol).
> 
> but 2020? So I will stop renting the gfx 50s and go all in for fujifilm. sorry canon. too late.


If your shooting with a 100 mp camera your likely using a tripod.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 12, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> If your shooting with a 100 mp camera your likely using a tripod.



No, not always IMHO
I use one for a fair proportion of paying work with the 50MP 5Ds, but am quite happy to shoot hand held when the need arises.

When I moved from 21 to 50 I did wonder how important the tripod would become - nowhere near as much as I thought.
So, yes the 100MP would make tripod use a bit more likely in some situations, but then IBIS would also help with handheld.

In the meantime I also look forwards to trying the 100MP Fuji and when Hasselblad produce an X1D-100C


----------



## saveyourmoment (Jan 12, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> If your shooting with a 100 mp camera your likely using a tripod.


of course, but how many really do that...anybody should realize how sharp a photo can get when using a steady tripod.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 12, 2019)

saveyourmoment said:


> actually you need ibis to take quite sharp photos with a 100mp sensor. even fujifilm 100s has that, because you will not be able to take sharp photos handheld with 100mp sensor(or at least you need really steady hands and good breath control).


Actually, this article says exactly the opposite. Do you have any reference supporting your claim?


----------



## cpsico (Jan 12, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> If your shooting with a 100 mp camera your likely using a tripod.


Or shooting at 1/5000 of a second lol


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 12, 2019)

I don't get the 'what I would prefer is .........' responses to a post like this. The introduction of a 100mp camera does not mean your preferred mp count camera won't happen. It makes more sense to actually talk about the post rather than something else entirely. As for the possibility of a 100mp body. It would certainly be interesting. But it would mean only shooting in good light conditions, on a tripod(the most likely) or that canon (or anyone for that matter) manage to greatly improve sensor performance.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 12, 2019)

saveyourmoment said:


> actually you need ibis to take quite sharp photos with a 100mp sensor. even fujifilm 100s has that, because you will not be able to take sharp photos handheld with 100mp sensor(or at least you need really steady hands and good breathcontrol).
> 
> but 2020? So I will stop renting the gfx 50s and go all in for fujifilm. sorry canon. too late.



Why would a 100MP camera without IBIS be any less sharp than a 30MP camera without IBIS? Camera shake leads to a 'smear' of the image independent of pixel count.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Why would a 100MP camera without IBIS be any less sharp than a 30MP camera without IBIS? Camera shake leads to a 'smear' of the image independent of pixel count.


actually......


Two cameras, one 25Mpixel, one 100Mpixel...

If the system moves enough to smear 2 pixels on the 25M camera, that is the same distance as smearing 4 pixels on the 100M camera, so yes, the number of pixels smeared will be the same. However, if you downsample the 100M image to the same size as the 25M image, (or upsample 25 to 100), they should be the same.

That said, it is rare that the movement will be an exact number of pixels. In the case where it moves 1.5 pixels on the 25M, it will move 3 on the 100M, and an upsample of the 25M image will show MORE smear than the 100M image.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

cpsico said:


> Or shooting at 1/5000 of a second lol


or using good technique, or resting against a tree, or whatever else works for you as a stabilizing technique


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Secondly, is a 100mp EOS R in the pipeline? It’s highly possible. We’ve been told that Canon scrapped the development of an EOS 5DS/R follow-up and that their next high megapixel camera will be for the EOS R system. I don’t think we’ll see such a camera until 2020, as I believe there need to be some more native RF lenses announced to handle landscape and studio shooters.



I disagree with CanonRumorsGuy's thought that there might need to be some more R lenses released before it's appropriate to field a new high-megapixel R body. The existing suite of EF lenses is fine for the purpose, or Sigma Art lenses in EF mount. If it were to come from a Canon source, it does not sound credible that they'd want to wait for lenses. On the other hand, if they said they're waiting to be able to offload 500mp per second to a memory card, you'd totally believe it, as this appears to be their obvious limitation at the moment. 

It has been a good number of years over which Canon has dealt with this throughput issue via a brute force method. The 1dX2 has three Digic processors on it, which it can get away with when you have a form factor the size of a salad plate to dissipate heat. Put that strategy in a space-constrained, battery-limited mirrorless form factor, and something has got to give. At the moment what they chose to give was all the frames per second above 3 while autofocusing in servo mode.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> I disagree with CanonRumorsGuy's thought that there might need to be some more R lenses released before it's appropriate to field a new high-megapixel R body. The existing suite of EF lenses is fine for the purpose, or Sigma Art lenses in EF mount. If it were to come from a Canon source, it does not sound credible that they'd want to wait for lenses. On the other hand, if they said they're waiting to be able to offload 500mp per second to a memory card, you'd totally believe it, as this appears to be their obvious limitation at the moment.
> 
> It has been a good number of years over which Canon has dealt with this throughput issue via a brute force method. The 1dX2 has three Digic processors on it, which it can get away with when you have a form factor the size of a salad plate to dissipate heat. Put that strategy in a space-constrained, battery-limited mirrorless form factor, and something has got to give. At the moment what they chose to give was all the frames per second above 3 while autofocusing in servo mode.



Nothing says that an R version of the 1DX2 can not have a similar form factor. You can make to the same physical dimensions, the only difference being that since the sensor would be closer to the mount, that there would be even more space for electronics.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 12, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Nothing says that an R version of the 1DX2 can not have a similar form factor. You can make to the same physical dimensions, the only difference being that since the sensor would be closer to the mount, that there would be even more space for electronics.


Bingo


----------



## deleteme (Jan 12, 2019)

Talys said:


> If so, a 100 megapixel _mirrorless_ could be a wonderful tool. For example, I can imagine that it could have a crop mode that would turn it into a 25 megapixel camera, using only the center 1/4 of the image circle at very high pixel density, yet filling up the EVF.



You just described a current µ43 sensor. Cheaper, lighter, available now.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> ....
> 
> If so, a 100 megapixel _mirrorless_ could be a wonderful tool. For example, I can imagine that it could have a crop mode that would turn it into a 25 megapixel camera, using only the center 1/4 of the image circle at very high pixel density, yet filling up the EVF.



This might be Canon's answer to "will there be an APS-C R camera?" Instead of an APS-C R, they might try to sell a high MP FF camera to those users who have crop lenses with the idea that they can still have their "crop camera" (with even more MPs than they have now) and also have FF.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 13, 2019)

100 MP... everything turns blury.... hopefully they design a less savage shutter for such high MP camera


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 13, 2019)

I still prefer to get the next 5D with some incremental upgrades. not comfortable with mirrorless cams. I dont enjoy photography with mirrorless


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 13, 2019)

Canon seems trying to evade the problem. DPAF is not working for any high frame rate action. canon have to scrap DPAF altogether and design whole new sensor and AF approach. I m pretty sure they get rid of it.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Nothing says that an R version of the 1DX2 can not have a similar form factor. You can make to the same physical dimensions, the only difference being that since the sensor would be closer to the mount, that there would be even more space for electronics.


... and plenty of space for IBIS.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 13, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> Canon seems trying to evade the problem. DPAF is not working for any high frame rate action. canon have to scrap DPAF altogether and design whole new sensor and AF approach. I m pretty sure they get rid of it.


Rubbish.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> 100 MP... everything turns blury.... hopefully they design a less savage shutter for such high MP camera


What is the evidence for that statement? You can get tack sharp images from a 20.6 mpx 1"" sensor, which has the pixel size equivalent of a 150 mpx FF sensor.


----------



## tmroper (Jan 13, 2019)

With Sony already having a 100MP sensor, and Nikon saying one is in the works, doesn't Canon bascially have to have one, too?


----------



## djack41 (Jan 13, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Seems with Canon, it's always tomorrow. Hey Canon, while your at it, trash the AA filter.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 13, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> 100 MP... everything turns blury.... hopefully they design a less savage shutter for such high MP camera


You should take a peek at the latest micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. If you scaled up the sensor to FF size, you would have 80Mpixels, and they produce sharp images.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.
> 
> So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy.
> 
> ...




Since half the pixels of a Bayer-masked sensor are filtered for green light, and the green range is what human eye/brain systems use to discriminate fine details, the effective resolution of a Bayer-masked sensor is NOT one-fourth the resolution of the sensor. It's much closer to one-half, as tested using alternating black and white lines of decreasing width.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> The best camera for high res imaging of art and natural objects is a scanning back. Accurate color, mad resolution, and minimal diffraction issues.
> Of course no flash and minimal portability but then for that niche it is less important.



Yes. And Large Format lenses and camera boxes in front of the scanning back.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> The real use for me with a 100 megapixel camera would be to get more reach out of existing lenses, or to be able to use smaller lenses, for birding and other wildlife photography. So, what it comes down to is, are two things: first, how good are heavily cropped photos? Secondly, when a 100 megapixel image is taken under ideal lighting and reduced down to 5 megapixels or so, how much better or worse is it compared to a 30-ish megapixel camera reduced down to 5-10 megapixels?
> 
> In reality, every single time, a 1DX with the ideal focal length lens (ie no cropping required) reduced down to print or screen resolutions produces better results than a camera with a lot more megapixels and a lens with a lot less focal length.
> 
> ...



Of course, the center quarter, in terms of area, of a 36 x 24 mm frame is 18 x 12 mm. That's very close to the 17.3 x 13 mm Micro Four-thirds cameras in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The diagonals are 21.63 mm versus 21.64 mm.


----------



## Talys (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> You just described a current µ43 sensor. Cheaper, lighter, available now.


Except, there is no optical super telephotos for MFT (or anything close). And there won't ever be, because the size of the image circle makes it so it doesn't make sense to have a gigantic lens to a little tiny camera. Plus, I don't want a MFT sized camera; I want a 5D sized body, to be paired with such a lens.

Imagine how cool it would be with an optical 400mm or 600mm and being able to switch with a button press to crop mode, or go to a wider crop. A lens like a 400mm DO would have a whole new utility to it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> Except, there is no optical super telephotos for MFT (or anything close). And there won't ever be, because the size of the image circle makes it so it doesn't make sense to have a gigantic lens to a little tiny camera. Plus, I don't want a MFT sized camera; I want a 5D sized body, to be paired with such a lens.
> 
> Imagine how cool it would be with an optical 400mm or 600mm and being able to switch with a button press to crop mode, or go to a wider crop. A lens like a 400mm DO would have a whole new utility to it.


Certainly not a native 300F4, the equivalent of the Canon 600F4, or an adapter to allow you to use a Canon lens, or a Metabones speedbooster.....


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> You should take a peek at the latest micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. If you scaled up the sensor to FF size, you would have 80Mpixels, and they produce sharp images.


This is true. My Olympus produces bitingly sharp images. I only have the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. Don, do you happen to have the 40-150mm? I think that's my next step.


----------



## Pape (Jan 13, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> If your shooting with a 100 mp camera your likely using a tripod.


I dont think you will use much tripod with 100mpixel camera ,if you not studio photographer .
On old film days sturdy enough for sharp pics tripod was like 10kg right? 
100 mpix camera is like 5x more sharper what film so you need 50kg tripod if equally constructed, and i dont think simple one screw attach to camera would be sturdy enough .
Ibis doesnt help either cause imagestabilizers wont handle micro movements only ones you can see bare eye ,imagestabilized picture is like 1mpixel as sharp if tooked 4stop under normal handhold time.
So only way shoot on field is use old hand hold rule 1/50sec with 50mm objective x5 = 250/s with 50mm.

I am dreaming about camera with 100mpxl cencor ,what when you take photograph combines 9 pixel work together and output is blended median or mean,and produce one big pixel ,so picture what comes would be 10mpixel 
.And then inside 1/1000 from shoot camera looks what areas on picture are on focus and closes all pixels what are on unsharp area and shoot very fast 10 max resolution cropped to focused area pics and fuses them with original pic, so part of pic is 10mpixel density sized pixels and part 100mpixel density.
I dont know if its possible make camera like that but sounds cool


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2019)

IBIS, 100MPix & no mirror are a good combination for ultra high resolution photos ... with the right lens on the camera.

And hopefully a 25 MPix raw mode where you get R-G-G-B pixel quadupletts for one image pixel which makes color moiree of monochromatic light sources (LEDs e.g.) a thing of the past + roughly (13+14+13=)40 bit color depth + gives better high ISO IQ !

While I would prefer the 25 MPix-mode for what I do with my current (older) lens selection - it would be always good to have alternatives for different applications!


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 13, 2019)

tmroper said:


> With Sony already having a 100MP sensor, and Nikon saying one is in the works, doesn't Canon bascially have to have one, too?




---

I'm pretty sure Canon KNOWS large-sensor and low-light sensor imaging like the back of their hand!

Canon already has manufactured and tested HUUUUUGE image sensors such as those noted below:

a) 120 megapixel APS-H 29 mm by 20 mm Sensor at

See links at:
http://www.canon.com/technology/future/cmos.html

Canon building 120 megapixel DSLR:
https://petapixel.com/2015/09/08/canon-were-building-a-120-megapixel-dslr/

b) 250 megapixel sensor at 29.2×20.2mm. APS-H format at 19,580 by 12,600 pixels:

https://petapixel.com/2015/09/07/canon-unveils-a-monster-250-megapixel-sensor/

c) 448 megapixel sensor 202 mm by 205 mm at around 25,700 x 17,400 pixels which was made for spy satellites.

See link at:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7964414898/canonlargestsensor

Original Press Release:

*TOKYO, August 31, 2010*—Canon Inc. announced today that it has successfully developed the world's largest*1 CMOS image sensor, with a chip size measuring 202 x 205 mm. Because its expanded size enables greater light-gathering capability, the sensor is capable of capturing images in one one-hundredth the amount of light required by a professional-model digital SLR camera.

At 202 x 205 mm, the newly developed CMOS sensor is among the largest chips that can be produced from a 12-inch (300 mm) wafer, and is approximately 40 times the size of Canon's largest commercial CMOS sensor.*2

In the past, enlarging the size of the sensor resulted in an increase in the amount of time required between the receiving and transmission of data signals, which posed a challenge to achieving high-speed readout. Canon, however, solved this problem through an innovative circuit design, making possible the realization of a massive video-compatible CMOS sensor. Additionally, by ensuring the cleanest of cleanroom environments during the production process, the sensor minimizes image imperfections and dust.
Because the increased size of the new CMOS sensor allows more light to be gathered, it enables shooting in low-light environments. The sensor makes possible the image capture in one one-hundredth the amount of light required by a 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor, facilitating the shooting of 60 frame-per-second video with a mere 0.3 lux of illumination.*3

Potential applications for the new high-sensitivity CMOS sensor include the video recording of stars in the night sky and nocturnal animal behavior.
Through the further development of distinctive CMOS image sensors, Canon will break new ground in the world of new image expression, in the area of still images as well as video.

*1 As of August 27, 2010. Based on a Canon study.
*2 The approximately 21.1 megapixel 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor employed in the company's EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR cameras.
*3 Approximately one-half the brightness of a moonlit night.

---

That 448 megapixel sensor announcement was QUICKLY REMOVED from Google, Bing and DuckDuck Go and the Canon website once the U.S. CIA, NSA and NRO got wind of that! Good thing I saved the original news announcements and still have them! It's probably now on the successor Wide-Field-of-View spy satellites operated by the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) spy imaging agency in the USA! At a photosite size of ABOUT 7.6 to 7.8 microns in size this will DEFINITELY OUTPERFROM the canon 1DxMk2 in low-light imaging -- which is ALREADY GOOD !!! If they keep THIS 202 x 205 mm sensor at 100 megapixels (10,000 by 10,000 pixels) then photosite size would be on the order of 20.2 microns which would be an UTTERLY MIDNIGHT TURNED INTO DAYLIGHT type of image sensor sensitivity! It would COMPLETELY BLOW AWAY the Sony A7s2!

For more information, do web searches on

"A 300mm Wafer Size CMOS Image Sensor for Low-Light-Level Imaging”

By

Hidekazu Takahashi, et al

from Canon's Imaging Research and Development division and
one of the scientists who basically invented this large-sensor gear!


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel.



The RGB filters do not represent sharp or total cutoffs. There's quite a bit of overlap between them. So a target would have to exist entirely within the peak of R or B to be recorded at 1/4 resolution. (For G it would be 1/2.) For any real world target...even a "red" or "blue" one...all of the pixels will have some response to the light and will contribute to the final resolution.

The only time you're going to see significant CFA related resolution loss is when testing in a laboratory with very specific color filters over the lens.

It should also be noted that probably every RAW converter today looks at the 8 neighboring pixels, not just the four sharing a given quad.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> It reminds me of many of the 5Ds complaints coming from people who probably should have got a 5D4, the 5Ds seemed a niche product from the start.



While I hear what you're saying, I still hate it when people call the 5Ds a "niche" camera. The only arguable shortcoming (for stills) is 5fps for sports/action. And in use I haven't found the 5fps to be an issue so much as the buffer depth, which is still serviceable. Sure it can't pump out 8-12fps. But when you nail the shot at 5fps..._it's a 50mp shot._

I'm perfectly comfortable using a 5Ds as my main camera for everything. When I say main, the other camera is essentially sitting in the bag as a backup in case something goes wrong.


----------



## rsdofny (Jan 13, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't. Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.



The megapixels will get the attention, but something have to give... processing speed, throughput of data pipe, storage, heat dissipation and most importantly price.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Seems with Canon, it's always tomorrow. Hey Canon, while your at it, trash the AA filter.



The AA filter hardly makes a difference between 5Ds and 5Dsr images while pixel peeping. Except of course when moire rears its ugly head, at which point the difference is observable at normal sizes unless/until you clean up the 5Dsr shot.

Canon dominates wedding and fashion and has resisted the "no AA filter" meme. I hope they continue to do so, or at least offer the choice on their highest resolution bodies.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> Canon seems trying to evade the problem. DPAF is not working for any high frame rate action. canon have to scrap DPAF altogether and design whole new sensor and AF approach. I m pretty sure they get rid of it.


DPAF is a concept which will - in my opinion - stay for a longer while.

Chip technology which allows more 3D structures on silicon based chips might lead to advanced readout systems on the chip e.g. the complete focus system and leave room for image readout (in terms of time).

At the moment I think DPAF uses only data of focus points or regions and the sensor is in DPAF mode. During exposure the mode is switched to image acquisition mode. In Servo modes you have to switch between modes and that costs time. On chip circuitry might help to get DPAF data independently from image acquisition - the 10 fps of the entry level M50 would be possible with Servo AF (which is at the moment not possible).

I am shure that these sensor designs exist on paper and Canon is able to produce test units (maybe 1 MPix versions) but not on a mass production scale - and that is there they have to solve problems to cut the cost per unit down.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't.



What makes you think they can blow past 50mp, at current tech levels given current consumer pricing, but decided not to because they believed no one would want it?



> Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.



False analogy since resolution is a key component to photographic IQ, and dividing the silicon into smaller and smaller pixels does create higher resolution files.

That said: we have entered the realm of diminishing returns. 24mp is more than sufficient for most photographers and subject/view size combinations. But there are those who want more, and even now still want more. Don't think for a minute that 50mp will be the cap on 35mm sensor resolution. That cap will probably be around 100-150mp.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> Canon seems trying to evade the problem. DPAF is not working for any high frame rate action. canon have to scrap DPAF altogether and design whole new sensor and AF approach. I m pretty sure they get rid of it.



This has everything to do with readout speed and nothing to do with DPAF itself. They need to up their game in terms of chip fabrication to get the read out speeds they need for both FF 4k and high fps DPAF.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 13, 2019)

Even for landscapes, 100 mp seems to be an overkill. 50mp would be just fine.
However if say a 100 mp camera will be able to downsample to 25-33mp with DR increase, it'd be very nice.


----------



## djack41 (Jan 13, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The AA filter hardly makes a difference between 5Ds and 5Dsr images while pixel peeping. Except of course when moire rears its ugly head, at which point the difference is observable at normal sizes unless/until you clean up the 5Dsr shot.
> 
> Canon dominates wedding and fashion and has resisted the "no AA filter" meme. I hope they continue to do so, or at least offer the choice on their highest resolution bodies.


I beg to differ. An AA filter diminishes resolution of fine detail by 10% +/-. This is why the higher priced 5DSR outsells the 5DS and why other camera manufacturers have all but abandoned the AA filter. To realize the most benefit of a 50mp sensor requires the finest/expensive lenses, so why give back resolution in every single image just to avoid very rare moire, which is easily corrected in post should it appear. Canon has done well among wedding photographers, not because of the AA filter, but because of the advances offered by the 5D2 in its day and the family of Canon lenses. Having made the investment, switching ecosystems is expensive.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 13, 2019)

It would be interesting to see how something like this performs in real life. Panorama files from a 5DSr are already nearing un-manageable status.

If I shot a 17 frame panorama with a 100mp camera, I would have no way to process it.

I would rather see Canon release a 25-30 mp sensor based on Foveon technology.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 13, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I beg to differ. An AA filter diminishes resolution of fine detail by 10% +/-. This is why the higher priced 5DSR outsells the 5DS and why other camera manufacturers have all but abandoned the AA filter. To realize the most benefit of a 50mp sensor requires the finest/expensive lenses, so why give back resolution in every single image just to avoid very rare moire, which is easily corrected in post should it appear. Canon has done well among wedding photographers, not because of the AA filter, but because of the advances offered by the 5D2 in its day and the family of Canon lenses. Having made the investment, switching ecosystems is expensive.



No it doesn’t. Before I settled for the 5DS I tried both s and sr together. Obviously from unsharpened raw the sr is sharper with greater contrast, and, if we’re going to be anal, occasionally some colour aliasing. Equally obvious is the fact that from an unsharpened file the sr will produce a higher “resolution” MTF when compared with the unsharpened s. But apply a tiny amount of USM and the difference has gone. 

Long live the AA filter on a Bayer Array sensor.


----------



## sdz (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I think we are very close to minimal additional improvements.The conversations about noise and DR are somewhat overblown as the differences seem to have small impact. It is hard to believe that everyone needs to stretch their files into such unrecognizable shape that magical DR (that actually doesn't exist) will save their lives.



Marginal utility explained

Greater than marginal improvements in dynamic range would likely require a new sensor technology and great improvements in computing power, power management, etc. I'll not hold my breath waiting for these technical leaps.


----------



## sdz (Jan 13, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't. Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.



Sony supplies sensors to Phase One.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Even for landscapes, 100 mp seems to be an overkill. 50mp would be just fine.
> However if say a 100 mp camera will be able to downsample to 25-33mp with DR increase, it'd be very nice.


Not overkill if you regularly want to make large prints ;-) Downsampled 5Ds images look good, so yes 100+MP would interest me...


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 13, 2019)

danski0224 said:


> It would be interesting to see how something like this performs in real life. Panorama files from a 5DSr are already nearing un-manageable status.
> 
> If I shot a 17 frame panorama with a 100mp camera, I would have no way to process it.
> 
> I would rather see Canon release a 25-30 mp sensor based on Foveon technology.



Unmanageable? Hardly, I regularly include dozens of 5Ds images in high res survey panos, and I'm working on a 2010 Mac Pro


----------



## Yasko (Jan 13, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.
> 
> So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy.
> 
> ...



Ehm, am I completely mistaken or are you? I thought a pixel consists of 4 (or 3) subpixels that have the colorfilters in front of them. So if this 100 mpx is not marketing speech bullshitting the buyer than it should mean that we have indeed a sensor at hand with 100 mpx that can display color (meaning 400 m-subpx).

When I open raw files from my 26 mpx 6D mk II, the files have 26 mpx (as advertised) independent of the scene I took the image of. I definitely don‘t have a 6,25 mpx file...

Am I missing something?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 13, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> No it doesn’t. Before I settled for the 5DS I tried both s and sr together. Obviously from unsharpened raw the sr is sharper with greater contrast, and, if we’re going to be anal, occasionally some colour aliasing. Equally obvious is the fact that from an unsharpened file the sr will produce a higher “resolution” MTF when compared with the unsharpened s. But apply a tiny amount of USM and the difference has gone.
> 
> Long live the AA filter on a Bayer Array sensor.


 Physical AA filter and software sharpening filter only cause loss of information, and sharpening doesn't actually recover anything, it sacrifices more information to make the image sharper visually. Measuring MTF after applying a software filter that artificially increases MTF doesn't make much sense.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 13, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> No it doesn’t. Before I settled for the 5DS I tried both s and sr together. Obviously from unsharpened raw the sr is sharper with greater contrast, and, if we’re going to be anal, occasionally some colour aliasing. Equally obvious is the fact that from an unsharpened file the sr will produce a higher “resolution” MTF when compared with the unsharpened s. But apply a tiny amount of USM and the difference has gone.
> 
> Long live the AA filter on a Bayer Array sensor.


Definitely - I've compared the two and am quite happy I decided to save the couple of hundred quid difference when I got the 5Ds 

'Lack of AA filter' seems largely a marketing led feature to extract more from the punters and perhaps also those relying on some maths over actually taking some photos to look at ;-) 

Tried the Hasselblad X1D-50C recently and when moire hits with that you -really- notice it - otherwise really nice


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 13, 2019)

funny.... I remember all the same arguments when we left 8 megapixels behind......


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 13, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> This is true. My Olympus produces bitingly sharp images. I only have the Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. Don, do you happen to have the 40-150mm? I think that's my next step.


We just have the 12-50 and the 40-150. They are ok, but not as nice as the pro lenses. The whole reason we got an Oly was to have something that fit into a tool bag.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> funny.... I remember all the same arguments when we left 8 megapixels behind......


Indeed, some of the film/digital ones before are quite amusing to look back on too ;-)

Personally, I might appreciate the mathematical analysis, but when it comes down to it, it's taking photos and making your own mind up that wins out...


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Physical AA filter and software sharpening filter only cause loss of information,



You're applying binary thinking to a physical phenomenon which is not binary. An AA filter shifts the MTF curve slightly. In theory that should result in a loss of resolution (ability to distinguish line pairs) at the very extinction limit of the MTF curve. In practice you would be very hard pressed to observe the loss even while pixel peeping a resolution chart because contrast at extinction is so low. The difference you can actually see with your own eyes occurs at higher contrast levels. It's also a difference which can be mitigated through software.

Note that analysis software which takes a resolution chart image and spits out a single number does so based on a specific contrast point that is close to but above actual extinction. You can sharpen the AA filter image before feeding it to the software and get the same output resolution number. By the same token you can, to a point, sharpen either image to boost the output numbers. In other words: the software's output is an imperfect approximation of reality, not the gospel truth. And it couldn't be any other way since resolution is not a single number. It's a curve.



> and sharpening doesn't actually recover anything, it sacrifices more information to make the image sharper visually.



Sharpening does not sacrifice image data (except perhaps in extreme cases or with poor algorithms) and can in fact allow recovery of some information.


----------



## Joules (Jan 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Physical AA filter and software sharpening filter only cause loss of information, and sharpening doesn't actually recover anything, it sacrifices more information to make the image sharper visually. Measuring MTF after applying a software filter that artificially increases MTF doesn't make much sense.



Edit: Phone messed up and hit reply before I could type anything...

First up, I don't fully understand the details myself, but I've been interested in the topic for a few weeks now and did some basic research. With that said, as far as I know you're assumptiin of information getting lost because of the low-pass (AA) filter in cameras is partially wrong. Some Information may get lost, but the majority is just convolved with information from the sourrounding pixels. Through a technique called deconvolution, this information can be restored. The following PDF document and webpage have some technical explanations and nice examples of what can be achieved:
- More general and technical: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw13sfg4ciYMGPUqW6g_u3k6&cshid=1547385810817
- Easier to read and nice visual examples: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/image-restoration2/

The point is, for small, predictable amounts of blur like an AA filter produces, the amount of truly lost information is probably neglible. It's just a matter of applying the techniques to get the Information when it's needed.


----------



## Joules (Jan 13, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Ehm, am I completely mistaken or are you? I thought a pixel consists of 4 (or 3) subpixels that have the colorfilters in front of them. So if this 100 mpx is not marketing speech bullshitting the buyer than it should mean that we have indeed a sensor at hand with 100 mpx that can display color (meaning 400 m-subpx).
> 
> When I open raw files from my 26 mpx 6D mk II, the files have 26 mpx (as advertised) independent of the scene I took the image of. I definitely don‘t have a 6,25 mpx file...
> 
> Am I missing something?


You can take the marketing numbers literally. A 24 Megapixel sensor has 12 Million green pixels, and 6 million red and blue ones. And talking about the resolution of screens like the LiveView and ViewFinder Canon at least also calls it 2.1 Million dots when they should say 0.7 million dots of each color (or 0.7 Megapixel, a.k.a not even HD).

By the time you open a raw file in any editor, a step called debayering will have been applied to it. For soc JPEG images this is done in camera. This will overlay information extracted from the sourround pixels over each of the single colour pixels to estimate the two missing components to form an actual pixel in the digital sense.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 13, 2019)

sdz said:


> Sony supplies sensors to Phase One.


The Phase One sensors are 2.5 times larger than Canons full frame sensors. The 150 MP XF IQ4 has a pixel density similar to a 60MP full frame. The 100 MP XF 1Q3 would be equivalent to 40MP. Fuji's GFX 100S has a smaller sensor so the density will be similar to the IQ4. (ie. bigger sensors can support more pixels).

The physical properties of light dictate that there are limits to the benefits of smaller pixels and that we will soon reach a point where further miniaturization is counter productive. Short of going to larger sensors, a good strategy would be optimize existing sensors through multi-sampling, computation and pixel shifting which is where Sony seems to be heading.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 13, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Ehm, am I completely mistaken or are you? I thought a pixel consists of 4 (or 3) subpixels that have the colorfilters in front of them.



Nope, the previous commenter is correct. Some
Canon sensors have subpixels (those with DPAF), but that is neither here nor there. In traditional sensors, each pixel is only sensitive to a narrow passband: red, green, or blue.



Yasko said:


> When I open raw files from my 26 mpx 6D mk II, the files have 26 mpx (as advertised) independent of the scene I took the image of. I definitely don‘t have a 6,25 mpx file...
> 
> Am I missing something?



What you’re missing I think is that you’re looking at a debayered depiction of the raw. It has 26 million pixels, and it also has more than three colors, yes?


----------



## Act444 (Jan 13, 2019)

> We’ve been told that Canon scrapped the development of an EOS 5DS/R follow-up and that their next high megapixel camera will be for the EOS R system.



If true, too bad. Although that said, the current model is good enough most likely to get several more years out of...

As for the 5DS vs. 5DSR discussion, I suspect that the filter in the regular 5DS is relatively weak, as I remember when I tried it out I was still impressed by the clarity and sharpness of the images in test shots. I went for the R version because I wanted every last bit of detail (especially at that resolution anyway), but the S was still putting out crisp results if I recall. However, the difference is much more apparent when compared to either the 5D3 or 5D4. 5DSR shots often look crisper, sharper and have more pop to them (even with the same lens!)...of course much of that can be attributed to the additional MP, but I'm sure the lack of AA filter helps too. Especially when the 50MP looks crisper than the 30MP one when both are viewed at 100%...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Since half the pixels of a Bayer-masked sensor are filtered for green light, and the green range is what human eye/brain systems use to discriminate fine details, the effective resolution of a Bayer-masked sensor is NOT one-fourth the resolution of the sensor. It's much closer to one-half, as tested using alternating black and white lines of decreasing width.



I seem to recall someone saying they often sharpen the blue channel selectively to increase sharpness in their images which led me to suspect that it is blue information that gives the fine resolution. 
Or am I misunderstanding something?


----------



## Tremotino (Jan 13, 2019)

I still hope the high mp aensor will be something like the sigma Foveon X3 sensor with 3 layers. it would be my dream camera. Image quality would be soo much better, not sure about the color science


----------



## deleteme (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> Except, there is no optical super telephotos for MFT (or anything close). And there won't ever be, because the size of the image circle makes it so it doesn't make sense to have a gigantic lens to a little tiny camera. Plus, I don't want a MFT sized camera; I want a 5D sized body, to be paired with such a lens.
> 
> Imagine how cool it would be with an optical 400mm or 600mm and being able to switch with a button press to crop mode, or go to a wider crop. A lens like a 400mm DO would have a whole new utility to it.



Then the upcoming Olympus OMD-M1x that is the size of a D series Canon with 18FPS and 20MP. Fit the native Oly 300 and you have a compact super tele system. They also offer TCs to inexpensively give you the reach of even longer lenses.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 13, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I seem to recall someone saying they often sharpen the blue channel selectively to increase sharpness in their images which led me to suspect that it is blue information that gives the fine resolution.
> Or am I misunderstanding something?



Early digital camera files were often examined to see the amount of blue channel noise as that was a real issue as ISOs climbed.
That seems to be not an issue anymore.
Sharpening that channel only would make the image noisier but then noise can give the impression of increased sharpness. Selective channel sharpening and other sharpening exercises have long been part of the photo community's quest for the magic juju that somehow transform their images from average to excellent. Sharpening any channel will have varying effects depending on the content. OTOH absent extreme sharpening in a channel the effects will be largely invisible.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 13, 2019)

sdz said:


> Marginal utility explained
> 
> Greater than marginal improvements in dynamic range would likely require a new sensor technology and great improvements in computing power, power management, etc. I'll not hold my breath waiting for these technical leaps.



Greater improvements in DR are limited by physics. 16 bit files can help but we are still very close to the limits of the natural world.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I seem to recall someone saying they often sharpen the blue channel selectively to increase sharpness in their images which led me to suspect that it is blue information that gives the fine resolution.
> Or am I misunderstanding something?



The human eye/brain vision system relies on wavelengths in the middle of the visible spectrum for perception of details. Those wavelengths are squarely within the band of wavelengths for which the green filter in Bayer masked sensors is most efficient. Wavelengths near the edge of the visible spectrum on the blue end are the hardest for the human eye to resolve. That's why a green or red LED will look sharper across the room than a blue LED will. Our eyes are not able to focus blue light as well as they can focus green and , to a lesser extent, red light.

Speaking of which, the "red" cones in our retinas are actually centered on a wavelength that is more like "yellow-green" than red. There's a LOT of overlap between the M (green) and L (red) cones, and much less overlap between the M (green) and S (blue) cones. It's the difference between what we see without M and L cones that produces the perception of red in our brains. Likewise, the "red" filters in most Bayer masks are closer to yellow than to red. Trichromatic vision systems do not require that the same three colors are most responsive in the capture devices and in the display devices that display the results.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The human eye/brain vision system relies on wavelengths in the middle of the visible spectrum for perception of details. Those wavelengths are squarely within the band of wavelengths for which the green filter in Bayer masked sensors is most efficient. Wavelengths near the edge of the visible spectrum on the blue end are the hardest for the human eye to resolve. That's why a green or red LED will look sharper across the room than a blue LED will. Our eyes are not able to focus blue light as well as they can focus green and , to a lesser extent, red light.
> 
> Speaking of which, the "red" cones in our retinas are actually centered on a wavelength that is more like "yellow-green" than red. There's a LOT of overlap between the M (green) and L (red) cones, and much less overlap between the M (green) and S (blue) cones. It's the difference between what we see without M and L cones that produces the perception of red in our brains. Likewise, the "red" filters in most Bayer masks are closer to yellow than to red. Trichromatic vision systems do not require that the same three colors are most responsive in the capture devices and in the display devices that display the results.


Thanks for that explanation!


----------



## analoggrotto (Jan 13, 2019)

Fellas, looks like we will be buying new computers (and a few hard drives) with our next cameras!


----------



## Yasko (Jan 13, 2019)

Joules said:


> You can take the marketing numbers literally. A 24 Megapixel sensor has 12 Million green pixels, and 6 million red and blue ones. And talking about the resolution of screens like the LiveView and ViewFinder Canon at least also calls it 2.1 Million dots when they should say 0.7 million dots of each color (or 0.7 Megapixel, a.k.a not even HD).
> 
> By the time you open a raw file in any editor, a step called debayering will have been applied to it. For soc JPEG images this is done in camera. This will overlay information extracted from the sourround pixels over each of the single colour pixels to estimate the two missing components to form an actual pixel in the digital sense.



Thanks. I didn‘t know that


----------



## Talys (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Then the upcoming Olympus OMD-M1x that is the size of a D series Canon with 18FPS and 20MP. Fit the native Oly 300 and you have a compact super tele system. They also offer TCs to inexpensively give you the reach of even longer lenses.



I don't think you understand. MFT (or APSC) gives you more reach by increasing pixel density. So you get the "equivalent" of a 600mm, for example. However, if you were to attach an optical 600mm to the same pixel density, you'd have an even further reach (like 900mm or more). In other words, a 100megapixel full frame would offer us the benefit of a super high density sensor PLUS an long focal length.

Olympus will never make lenses like an optical 600/4 for MFT, because it makes no sense to. Those lenses would be exactly the same size as an EF (or RF) 600/4, and anyone buying one would just mount it on a bigger body with a bigger sensor. I mean, why not spend a little more to have a bigger sensor when the relative cost of that is very small compared to the $10,000 lens, and the relative weight/size of the body is immaterial when compared to the big lens. In other words, use a sensor that will take advantage of the smallest image circle possible.

It's totally fair to say, that you're happy with a higher density sensor with a shorter FL lens. But all I'm saying is, this lets us have the higher density sensor with the longer FL lens for super-duper reach, or to use an existing excellent shorter FL length to achieve greater reach. Or, to have more flexibility which whichever lens happens to be mounted.

My concern is that either the deep crop or the reduced image is not as pleasing as, for example, a 1DX with a 600mm and an extender.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 13, 2019)

You're probably mixing up the MTF/resolution and 'information'. Again sharpening may increase visual sharpness, but it never actually recovers anything. You always lose some detail, sacrificing it for 'sharpness', best case it's imperseptible but it's a loss and it may affect further postprocessing.


dtaylor said:


> You're applying binary thinking to a physical phenomenon which is not binary. An AA filter shifts the MTF curve slightly. In theory that should result in a loss of resolution (ability to distinguish line pairs) at the very extinction limit of the MTF curve. In practice you would be very hard pressed to observe the loss even while pixel peeping a resolution chart because contrast at extinction is so low. The difference you can actually see with your own eyes occurs at higher contrast levels. It's also a difference which can be mitigated through software.
> 
> Note that analysis software which takes a resolution chart image and spits out a single number does so based on a specific contrast point that is close to but above actual extinction. You can sharpen the AA filter image before feeding it to the software and get the same output resolution number. By the same token you can, to a point, sharpen either image to boost the output numbers. In other words: the software's output is an imperfect approximation of reality, not the gospel truth. And it couldn't be any other way since resolution is not a single number. It's a curve.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joules (Jan 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You're probably mixing up the MTF/resolution and 'information'. Again sharpening may increase visual sharpness, but it never actually recovers anything. You always lose some detail, sacrificing it for 'sharpness'


Have you read my reply to you on the previous page? There are definitively sharpening methods which truly recover detail. I'm not denying losing some may be a side effect of other methods, but saying that is always the case seems wrong to me.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> I don't think you understand. MFT (or APSC) gives you more reach by increasing pixel density. So you get the "equivalent" of a 600mm, for example. However, if you were to attach an optical 600mm to the same pixel density, you'd have an even further reach (like 900mm or more). In other words, a 100megapixel full frame would offer us the benefit of a super high density sensor PLUS an long focal length.
> 
> Olympus will never make lenses like an optical 600/4 for MFT, because it makes no sense to. Those lenses would be exactly the same size as an EF (or RF) 600/4, and anyone buying one would just mount it on a bigger body with a bigger sensor. I mean, why not spend a little more to have a bigger sensor when the relative cost of that is very small compared to the $10,000 lens, and the relative weight/size of the body is immaterial when compared to the big lens. In other words, use a sensor that will take advantage of the smallest image circle possible.
> 
> ...



Trust me, I understand.
I am responding to your original idea of a crop mode on a high density sensor. Thus the µ43 sensor is already that sensor without the extraneous real estate that is not used.
The 300 Oly does have the same AOV as the FF 600. No need to make the 600. Yes the pixel density is high. That is what you proposed in the first post.

To wit: "If so, a 100 megapixel _mirrorless_ could be a wonderful tool. For example, I can imagine that it could have a crop mode that would turn it into a 25 megapixel camera, using only the center 1/4 of the image circle at very high pixel density, yet filling up the EVF."

Your proposal is exactly the model of the µ43 but with the added bulk and expense of FF optics.
The only "advantage" being that at FF one would now have 100MP, a dubious advantage.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jan 13, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


1 and done for me.


----------



## beachcolonist (Jan 13, 2019)

I would note that in the only comparison I've seen of Canon in-lens vs other in-body stabilization,* the in-lens won*. The tester was Tony Northrup who is pretty good at these things & included a chart. I would also note that a lot of landscape work is done on a tripod, and every manufacturer I've seen says to turn the IBIS off on a tripod. Last of all, a lot of motion blur is removable in Photoshop with the motion blur tool.


----------



## beachcolonist (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Trust me, I understand.
> I am responding to your original idea of a crop mode on a high density sensor. Thus the µ43 sensor is already that sensor without the extraneous real estate that is not used.
> The 300 Oly does have the same AOV as the FF 600. No need to make the 600. Yes the pixel density is high. That is what you proposed in the first post.
> 
> ...


~~~~
Is there a metric or spec for the ration of total pixel area to total sensor area? Should there be?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Then the upcoming Olympus OMD-M1x that is the size of a D series Canon with 18FPS and 20MP. Fit the native Oly 300 and you have a compact super tele system. They also offer TCs to inexpensively give you the reach of even longer lenses.


Olympus has a built in 2x electronic teleconverter in the cameras also. It is supposed to work very well, but I have not tried it. http://thedigitalstory.com/2018/04/the-impressive-olympus-digital-tele-converter.html


----------



## Talys (Jan 13, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Trust me, I understand.
> I am responding to your original idea of a crop mode on a high density sensor. Thus the µ43 sensor is already that sensor without the extraneous real estate that is not used.
> The 300 Oly does have the same AOV as the FF 600. No need to make the 600. Yes the pixel density is high. That is what you proposed in the first post.
> 
> ...


No, sorry, I must be unclear.

Currently, the most reach (pixels of a small distant object) you can get without getting super exotic lenses is 50 megapixel on 600mm at f4, plus extenders. With APSC or MFT, you dont get more density than a 5DSR, so you dont get more reach. You also need to let in enough light for snappy autofocus, so it is not ok to not just put extenders on extenders and end up with an f/11 or worse lens. 

100 megapixels would clearly increase that reach (again, more pixels of the faraway small object) . There will probably never be a MFT or APSC sensor with the same pixel density as a 100 megapixel AND supertelephotos with as much focal length as what will be available for a 100 megapixel full frame. 

Mirrorless would be nice because that crop mode in EVF makes composition and manual focus much easier than taking the shot and then checking it after.

The closest thing to this that works like what I describe today is the a7R3, but not many people would be happy with paired EF super telephotos (slow AF, unusable with TCs), plus 43 megixels really isn't much different from 30 when it comes to cropping (surprisingly)


----------



## 100 (Jan 13, 2019)

Talys said:


> There will probably never be a MFT or APSC sensor with the same pixel density as a 100 megapixel AND supertelephotos with as much focal length as what will be available for a 100 megapixel full frame.



1" sensors are at 20mp (~150mp translated to FF), so 30 or 40 megapixel MFT sensors are certainly possible unless MFT dies before we get there.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 14, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Stitching counts as adding another pizza.
> 
> Not discounting your need and I'm sure you're more experienced at building high res images than I am. However, I think there's an open question regarding how much addition benefit you get by going to smaller and smaller photocells on 135 format sensors. I'm not convinced that solution won't create more problems than it solves but I freely admit that I don't know where the tipping point is. I'm guessing it's less than 100 MP but I suppose we won't know until somebody puts an ultra high res sensor out there.



Have you seen the photos of the current 120 mp Canon sensor. Looks absolutely incredible.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 14, 2019)

Talys said:


> No, sorry, I must be unclear.
> 
> Currently, the most reach (pixels of a small distant object) you can get without getting super exotic lenses is 50 megapixel on 600mm at f4, plus extenders. With APSC or MFT, you dont get more density than a 5DSR, so you dont get more reach. You also need to let in enough light for snappy autofocus, so it is not ok to not just put extenders on extenders and end up with an f/11 or worse lens.
> 
> ...



Correct except you said "a crop of a 100MP sensor" Thus that is the same (close enough) pixel density as a µ43. As for enough light for decent AF, as mirrorless cameras focus using the sensor, the photons per square mm are the same as FF aperture for aperture. Thus Oly's 300mm f4 is delivering as many photons to a pixel as the FF 600 f4.
The OVF in my 5DsR and mkIV both show the crops in the VF and later on the LCD.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Correct except you said "a crop of a 100MP sensor" Thus that is the same (close enough) pixel density as a µ43.



He said crop mode (software implementation) not a physical crop (semiconductor dicing). A camera which delivers either 100MP full frame images or 25MP when heavily cropped is not available now.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> Edit: Phone messed up and hit reply before I could type anything...
> 
> First up, I don't fully understand the details myself, but I've been interested in the topic for a few weeks now and did some basic research. With that said, as far as I know you're assumptiin of information getting lost because of the low-pass (AA) filter in cameras is partially wrong. Some Information may get lost, but the majority is just convolved with information from the sourrounding pixels. Through a technique called deconvolution, this information can be restored. The following PDF document and webpage have some technical explanations and nice examples of what can be achieved:
> - More general and technical: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw13sfg4ciYMGPUqW6g_u3k6&cshid=1547385810817
> ...



Sorry didn't see your message yesterday as this forum doesn't show notifications on mobile view. Anyway, my point is, as far as I'm aware, all known sharpening methods are irreversible, you can't apply the inverse algorithm and get the original blurred image back *exactly* as it was. So there's always loss of information and some new information introduced (so called sharpening artifacts such as noise). The result may be visually appealing but you have less information for editing, 4 ex, sharpening doesn't work well with denoising. I agree AA filter does little harm but still does, it's evident when you compare samples from 5DS with and without the filter.


----------



## jmoya (Jan 14, 2019)

Now would anyone what this? They need to perfect their cameras before they release anything. Not only will I need to upgrade a my computer to handle these files but the features need to be better. Like the eos R missing the mark with no ibis, crop 4k and only 60fps at 1080p. They should've just added these on the eos R and have called it a day. Canon just does not get it.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 14, 2019)

Something to keep in mind is that quadbayering is becoming more mainstream, especially on the next generation sensors from Sony. Just look at the Sharp 8K camera that uses the same sensor as the GH5S. As well as the 48 megapixel cell phone sensors that are revisions to the 12 megapixel cameras. They're able to switch the Bayer mode to optimize resolution or low light. This 100 megapixel or more sensor might(hopefully) be using this technology.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

jmoya said:


> Canon just does not get it.



Hmm. Maybe canon doesn’t get “you”, but their sales suggest they get “it”.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Just look at the Sharp 8K camera that uses the same sensor as the GH5S.


How does that work? The GH5S has a 4k sensor. Does the sharp use two of them put side by side?


----------



## Pape (Jan 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> He said crop mode (software implementation) not a physical crop (semiconductor dicing). A camera which delivers either 100MP full frame images or 25MP when heavily cropped is not available now.
> View attachment 182632


idea having crop mode is that you dont need carry two camera ,one for birds and another for landscapes and stuff what let you come close.
25mpixel camera shoots lot faster than 100mp


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 14, 2019)

Pape said:


> idea having crop mode is that you dont need carry two camera ,one for birds and another for landscapes and stuff what let you come close


Exactly ...

... and if you have two IDENTICAL bodies with you for landscape + wildlife you do not think about which lens is on what camera & you do not need to change it (time + dust + water). Just a switch / tap on the touchscreen und you have the right mode. Just thinking about using a 2.8 300 for an antilope in crop mode but seeing a nice group of trees with a hill which fits in the FF view of the 2.8 300. Plus you have a consistent backup system.

And a mixed system isn't always that good: I think about combining the M50 + 1.4 32 with a FF EOS Rxyz + EF 70-200 f/4 for a medium light high IQ combo. But what if the M50 (battery) dies? Only one camera and one lens left. It is always better to have two identical bodies! For me it might be o.k. to have a mixed system but for a professional who relys on catching the light?


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 14, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Something to keep in mind is that quadbayering is becoming more mainstream, especially on the next generation sensors from Sony. Just look at the Sharp 8K camera that uses the same sensor as the GH5S. As well as the 48 megapixel cell phone sensors that are revisions to the 12 megapixel cameras. They're able to switch the Bayer mode to optimize resolution or low light. This 100 megapixel or more sensor might(hopefully) be using this technology.




---

Ideally what SHOULD be happening is that SOMEONE BIG (i.e. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic) licences Sigma's STACKED RGB sensor technology (aka Foveon Image Sensor) and puts it in a FULL FRAME SENSOR camera! A full frame sensor using STACKED RGB photosites would IDEALLY HAVE only 6000 by 4000 pixels (i.e. is a 3:2 aspect ratio) so that it woud be 24 megapixels BUT each stacked RGB photosite would be a full 6 microns in size in a NON-BAYER format. This means the SENSITIVITY of the band-pass layers within a stacked RGB photosite would PROBABLY allow the sensor to be equivalent in low-light level imaging power that is close to or even exceeds the Sony A7s2 which is by definition an EXCELLENT LOW-LIGHT CAMERA!

This means we could have Canon 1DxMk2 IQ mated to 24 megapixels resolution added to Sony A7s2 low-light imaging capability in a SINGLE inexpensive mirrorless camera package that costs less than $2000 US! That would definitely make MANY photographers happy! With that sort of sensor stacked RGB photosite technology, it actually makes VIDEO easier to manage, which also means 10-bits/channel 60 FPS DCI 4K+ video recording with 24 megapixel stills at 30 fps burst rates are NOW POSSIBLE! What a Sports, Action and Wildlife-centric combined stills and video camera THAT would be!
.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Since half the pixels of a Bayer-masked sensor are filtered for green light, and the green range is what human eye/brain systems use to discriminate fine details, the effective resolution of a Bayer-masked sensor is NOT one-fourth the resolution of the sensor. It's much closer to one-half, as tested using alternating black and white lines of decreasing width.



You're still talking about perceptive colour resolution rather than actual colour resolution. For amateur photography they're the same thing, but for certain professional/scientific applications we're not interested in viewing an image from a distance. We may need to zoom in to enlarge minute details and then pixel-accurate colour is important, especially in scientific fields. Or the images may not even be viewed by a person, but by a machine using artificial intelligence to identify details.

Yes, I know none of this is really important to the majority of people here, but it is for me


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 14, 2019)

beachcolonist said:


> I would note that in the only comparison I've seen of Canon in-lens vs other in-body stabilization,* the in-lens won*. The tester was Tony Northrup who is pretty good at these things & included a chart. I would also note that a lot of landscape work is done on a tripod, and every manufacturer I've seen says to turn the IBIS off on a tripod. Last of all, a lot of motion blur is removable in Photoshop with the motion blur tool.



In-lens IS only wins if the lens you have actually has IS installed!

Neither of the two flagship R lenses, the 28-70 and the 50 have IS which makes the whole argument pretty weak. Even if IBIS doesn't perform as well as in-lens IS (and this is certainly true for longer lenses but normal lenses and wide angle may not be), IBIS in a body guarantees it'll work with every lens you have.

IBIS is essential in a future body if Canon wishes to compete commercially. Now, I've chosen to buy the non-IBIS EOS R over the IBIS A7III because there are plenty of other things that are more important to me right now, but I'm pretty sure Canon understand that at least for the models higher up than the EOS R the reviews are going to be pretty brutal if it doesn't have IBIS.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 14, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Unmanageable? Hardly, I regularly include dozens of 5Ds images in high res survey panos, and I'm working on a 2010 Mac Pro



Well, for me it would be unmanageable. The file sizes would likely more than double, so I would routinely be over 2Gb. 
The stitching programs seem to handle the file sizes OK.
But the editing phase is where I am running into problems when the file size is over 2Gb or 60,000 pixels. I don't know if the subscription Lightroom is better than what I have for large file size editing. I have CS6, but never really got into it when Lightroom was suitable for me.

I haven't looked to see if the alternatives to Adobe are any better with large file sizes.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 14, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> Ideally what SHOULD be happening is that SOMEONE BIG (i.e. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic) licences Sigma's STACKED RGB sensor technology (aka Foveon Image Sensor) and puts it in a FULL FRAME SENSOR camera! A full frame sensor using STACKED RGB photosites would IDEALLY HAVE only 6000 by 4000 pixels (i.e. is a 3:2 aspect ratio) so that it woud be 24 megapixels BUT each stacked RGB photosite would be a full 6 microns in size in a NON-BAYER format. This means the SENSITIVITY of the band-pass layers within a stacked RGB photosite would PROBABLY allow the sensor to be equivalent in low-light level imaging power that is close to or even exceeds the Sony A7s2 which is by definition an EXCELLENT LOW-LIGHT CAMERA!
> 
> ...



Well, the Sigma Merrill cameras have a sensor that is 1:1:1 R/G/B stacked, and they are not excellent low light cameras by any means, but they are not "full frame" either.

The Quattro cameras have a different sensor that has fewer pixels for the two lower layers, and it is not a good low light camera, either. Nor is it "full frame".

One reason for the change is the amount of data from the Merrill sensor, and the time required to process it. A 24 MP 1:1:1 sensor would have roughly twice the data from the 15MP Merrill sensor cameras.

The engineering challenges must be high.

I'd love to see something around a 24MP Foveon sensor in "full frame" though. It would be roughly equal to a 75MP Bayer based sensor in resolution/detail.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 14, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> You're still talking about perceptive colour resolution rather than actual colour resolution. For amateur photography they're the same thing, but for certain professional/scientific applications we're not interested in viewing an image from a distance. We may need to zoom in to enlarge minute details and then pixel-accurate colour is important, especially in scientific fields. Or the images may not even be viewed by a person, but by a machine using artificial intelligence to identify details.
> 
> Yes, I know none of this is really important to the majority of people here, but it is for me




If you need to do scientific applications, get lab grade equipment, not cameras intended for taking pictures. But be prepared to pay several orders of magnitude more for it.

Most lab grade cameras are like astronomical cameras: the camera itself is monochrome. A color image is made by combining multiple exposures with different color filters in the light path for each exposure, or they use a beam splitter to divide the light signal to several identical sensors, each filtered for a different color.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 14, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> Ideally what SHOULD be happening is that SOMEONE BIG (i.e. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic) licences Sigma's STACKED RGB sensor technology (aka Foveon Image Sensor) and puts it in a FULL FRAME SENSOR camera! A full frame sensor using STACKED RGB photosites would IDEALLY HAVE only 6000 by 4000 pixels (i.e. is a 3:2 aspect ratio) so that it woud be 24 megapixels BUT each stacked RGB photosite would be a full 6 microns in size in a NON-BAYER format. This means the SENSITIVITY of the band-pass layers within a stacked RGB photosite would PROBABLY allow the sensor to be equivalent in low-light level imaging power that is close to or even exceeds the Sony A7s2 which is by definition an EXCELLENT LOW-LIGHT CAMERA!
> 
> ...




The reason no one is using Foveon style sensors is precisely because they are so terrible in low light. None of the layers are "trapping" all of the photons falling on that layer or there wouldn't be anything left for the layer(s) underneath. There is nothing intrinsically different about a photon of "green" light and a photon of "blue" light except the frequency at which it is vibrating.


----------



## William David (Jan 14, 2019)

I'am a french studio photographer since 20 years and I use Canon digital cameras since 15 years and I hope the integration of an IBIS and a better dynamic range instead higher Mpx !


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 14, 2019)

danski0224 said:


> Well, for me it would be unmanageable. The file sizes would likely more than double, so I would routinely be over 2Gb.
> The stitching programs seem to handle the file sizes OK.
> But the editing phase is where I am running into problems when the file size is over 2Gb or 60,000 pixels. I don't know if the subscription Lightroom is better than what I have for large file size editing. I have CS6, but never really got into it when Lightroom was suitable for me.
> 
> I haven't looked to see if the alternatives to Adobe are any better with large file sizes.



I use CS6 - .psb files can handle up to 300k pixels wide

LR has no place whatsoever in my pano workflow. Sorry but CS6 will easily do all you need in this area.
Lots of RAM helps though - but if i can do prints over 40 feet long from an old 2010 Mac Pro, there are no issues ;-)


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 14, 2019)

William David said:


> I'am a french studio photographer since 20 years and I use Canon digital cameras since 15 years and I hope the integration of an IBIS and a better dynamic range instead higher Mpx !


well, yes that too, but the original post was about a camera with over 100MP, not saying that this was the 'only' better EOS R on its way


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> How does that work? The GH5S has a 4k sensor. Does the sharp use two of them put side by side?



It's a variation of the same sensor. The GH5S has quad bayering on the sensor, it's just being utilized in a 4K mode. The sensor uses binning on 4 pixels to create 1 to be used for bayer. It's very similar to this sensor for smartphones:

https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_introduces_imx586_sensor_with_48_mp-news-32367.php

Camera sensor technology is really being pushed hard in order to make cell phone cameras usable, we're just finally starting to see this technology trickle into larger sensors.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The human eye/brain vision system relies on wavelengths in the middle of the visible spectrum for perception of details. Those wavelengths are squarely within the band of wavelengths for which the green filter in Bayer masked sensors is most efficient. Wavelengths near the edge of the visible spectrum on the blue end are the hardest for the human eye to resolve. That's why a green or red LED will look sharper across the room than a blue LED will. Our eyes are not able to focus blue light as well as they can focus green and , to a lesser extent, red light.
> 
> Speaking of which, the "red" cones in our retinas are actually centered on a wavelength that is more like "yellow-green" than red. There's a LOT of overlap between the M (green) and L (red) cones, and much less overlap between the M (green) and S (blue) cones. It's the difference between what we see without M and L cones that produces the perception of red in our brains. Likewise, the "red" filters in most Bayer masks are closer to yellow than to red. Trichromatic vision systems do not require that the same three colors are most responsive in the capture devices and in the display devices that display the results.



An excellent reply. Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 14, 2019)

beachcolonist said:


> ~~~~
> Is there a metric or spec for the ration of total pixel area to total sensor area? Should there be?



It used to be quoted but that was in the days that the microlenses overlaying the pixels were almost circular. As I understand it, nowadays the microlenses are rather like an abstract paving pattern so all light hitting the sensor is collected in some fashion and so quoting the % area covered by pixels is almost redundant.
People often use the 'pixel pitch' of a sensor which is usually readily available.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> It used to be quoted but that was in the days that the microlenses overlaying the pixels were almost circular. As I understand it, nowadays the microlenses are rather like an abstract paving pattern so all light hitting the sensor is collected in some fashion and so quoting the % area covered by pixels is almost redundant.
> People often use the 'pixel pitch' of a sensor which is usually readily available.


I’m not supportive of pitch for this particular situation. The center to center spacing says nothing about the actual size of the sensels, as it disregards the walls.


----------



## robotfist (Jan 14, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.
> 
> So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy.
> 
> ...



It’s also going to be an average (or poor) performer in low light having to cram that many pixel sensors on the chip. The more pixels the smaller the color sensors have to be to fit on the chip, which is why low megapixel cameras like the a7s can practically see in the dark. The sensors are larger and therefore more sensitive to gathering light. I really prefer less resolution and better performance in low light. Canon does not have anything like the a7s in their lineup. I wish they would focus on things like making chips with a faster readout, better lowlight capability and the ability to shoot high quality video in slow motion.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 14, 2019)

robotfist said:


> It’s also going to be an average (or poor) performer in low light having to cram that many pixel sensors on the chip. The more pixels the smaller the color sensors have to be to fit on the chip, which is why low megapixel cameras like the a7s can practically see in the dark. The sensors are larger and therefore more sensitive to gathering light. I really prefer less resolution and better performance in low light. Canon does not have anything like the a7s in their lineup. I wish they would focus on things like making chips with a faster readout, better lowlight capability and the ability to shoot high quality video in slow motion.


For a good idea of what to expect from this pixel density/size, look at the performance of the latest micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus and from Panasonic..... they would scale up to 80Mpixels if they were made into FF size, so expect about a half stop worse performance.

Also, look at the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, it is 20Mpixels on a 1" sensor, that one scales up to 150Mpixels if made FF size, expect a half stop better performance than it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> It's a variation of the same sensor. The GH5S has quad bayering on the sensor, it's just being utilized in a 4K mode. The sensor uses binning on 4 pixels to create 1 to be used for bayer. It's very similar to this sensor for smartphones:
> 
> https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_introduces_imx586_sensor_with_48_mp-news-32367.php
> 
> Camera sensor technology is really being pushed hard in order to make cell phone cameras usable, we're just finally starting to see this technology trickle into larger sensors.


I’ve always been a bit confused by Quad Bayer. I strikes me as a cost savings method for Semiconductor fabrication rather than something to benefit the user base (unless savings is passed over). It allows them to make one high resolution sensor, and use different CFAs, one for high color resolution, and one for binned well capacity. This in place of building two sensors, one with small and one with large photosites. Unles I’m missing something (please let me know), the user can’t get both in a single end item (the CFA is fixed), and the advantage lies with the fabrication cost.


----------



## djack41 (Jan 14, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> No it doesn’t. Before I settled for the 5DS I tried both s and sr together. Obviously from unsharpened raw the sr is sharper with greater contrast, and, if we’re going to be anal, occasionally some colour aliasing. Equally obvious is the fact that from an unsharpened file the sr will produce a higher “resolution” MTF when compared with the unsharpened s. But apply a tiny amount of USM and the difference has gone.
> 
> Long live the AA filter on a Bayer Array sensor.


OMG. Wish I had known that before I bought a 5DSR. Someone should inform Canon!


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 14, 2019)

djack41 said:


> OMG. Wish I had known that before I bought a 5DSR. Someone should inform Canon!


Yes, they did. The message got as far as the marketing department, who said "Yes, we know "


----------



## deleteme (Jan 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> He said crop mode (software implementation) not a physical crop (semiconductor dicing). A camera which delivers either 100MP full frame images or 25MP when heavily cropped is not available now.
> View attachment 182632



Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.


----------



## DTibor (Jan 14, 2019)

Just my thoughts:
For 100 megapixel FF sensor only some of the L lenses will provide acceptable sharpness.
With the same pixel density we should get a 40 megapixel APSC sensor.
I guess this makes no sense because most APSC lenses are not sharp enough even for 24 megapixels.


----------



## DTibor (Jan 14, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
> If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
> Just as many birders favor APS-C.



Most L lenses look terrible on m43 with regular adapter (those without focal reducer lens aka speedbooster)


----------



## William David (Jan 14, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> well, yes that too, but the original post was about a camera with over 100MP, not saying that this was the 'only' better EOS R on its way


I make the effort to write in English the least I ask you is to make an effort on your turn not to divert my words! And


----------



## Talys (Jan 14, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
> If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
> Just as many birders favor APS-C.



One of the reasons that birders like APSC is the field of view in the viewfinder. In a 5D/6D body, with a 400-600mm lens attached, a small bird is still very small. It might turn out ok in crop, but it's hard to tell if you're even in focus through the viewfinder with a full frame camera, without going to magnification liveview, even when you have enough pixels to make a decent photograph.

For me, one of the real benefits of a high res mirrorless is that if you can toggle between crop and full frame in the EVF with the push of a button, so you can use the wider field of view to compose -- or just find your subject -- and the cropped field of view in the EVF (and further magnification if you want it) to focus, or to simply end up with much smaller files instead of cropping in post. Plus, you can't shrink the original RAW by cropping.

Obviously, we have no idea how the high resolution Canon sensor will perform. But here's the issue with high-resolution sensors, to date -- they just aren't a replacement for having longer (or ideal) focal length lens, but it's sure tempting to try to do so. A MFT 300mm can be razor sharp, and yet the photos are not as pleasing as a 1DX with a 600mm at a much lower resolution. Or to put it another way, if you deeply crop 3 megapixels out of a 50 megapixel photo, it won't look remotely as good as if you had enough focal length to take 50 megapixels, and then reduced that to 3 megapixels.

Olympus MFT is the system I had after I switched from Nikon and before I came to Canon. One of the problems for it is that there simply are no 400mm-600mm+ lenses, and you can't get to those focal lengths without shrinking the aperture to way too small. In real terms, I don't have an issue with a full sized body and a 100-400 II lens mounted -- I can hike and shoot with that for 10+ hour stretches, and the results I get are just superior than an MFT with a 300mm, especially in bird in flight photos.

The reason I left Oly wasn't that I didn't like their cameras -- it's that I felt like I hit a ceiling with BIFs for even large-sized birds (like heron), where the keeper rate was significantly lower than Nikon, and I was frustratingly unable to increase it. Of course, that was a long time ago, and perhaps things have changed -- but now, I am a very happy Canon shooter, and for my non-birding stuff, Canon just has a much more complete lens portfolio with good options in a spectrum of price points. Plus, the third party accessory ecosystem is second to none.

Putting price aside, at 400mm and above, and especially with mirrorless, there is no advantage to MFT or APSC for the body, since the lens does not get any smaller with a smaller sensor, and I personally find that a larger body acts as a better balance to the heavy glass.

Anyways, all this to say, I'm excited to see how Canon's 100 megapixel RF performs. If it offers the kind of leap that the 5DSR did, I will probably buy one.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 14, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
> If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
> Just as many birders favor APS-C.



I think the point is that you get two cameras in one. The 100 MP FF for when you want it and a 25 MP crop camera when you want it. At the moment, the new R has crop mode (as do some other brands' cameras) but the crop MPs are much less than the current crop cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 14, 2019)

Talys said:


> The reason I left Oly wasn't that I didn't like their cameras -- it's that I felt like I hit a ceiling with BIFs for even large-sized birds (like heron), where the keeper rate was significantly lower than Nikon, and I was frustratingly unable to increase it. Of course, that was a long time ago, and perhaps things have changed -- but now, I am a very happy Canon shooter, and for my non-birding stuff, Canon just has a much more complete lens portfolio with good options in a spectrum of price points. Plus, the third party accessory ecosystem is second to none.



For me, it's the AF system. Canon will AF better than Oly. Even when something isn't moving, sometimes the Oly seems unable to hit focus, and when you are chasing a moving target, the 7D2 just blows it out of the water!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
> If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
> Just as many birders favor APS-C.


Right, but his point was that you kinda get both in a single package, rather than specialized rigs to choose from, I suspect.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 14, 2019)

Canon rumors (not the site) just get more ridiculous by the day.

the idea that canon will leapfrog...well, ANYTHING, at this point...and its always a year a way...just, bah.


----------



## Talys (Jan 14, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Canon rumors (not the site) just get more ridiculous by the day.
> 
> the idea that canon will leapfrog...well, ANYTHING, at this point...and its always a year a way...just, bah.


Like the way Canon has leapfrogged all other mirrorless autofocus systems and 50mm lenses, and general purpose zoom?


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I’ve always been a bit confused by Quad Bayer. I strikes me as a cost savings method for Semiconductor fabrication rather than something to benefit the user base (unless savings is passed over). It allows them to make one high resolution sensor, and use different CFAs, one for high color resolution, and one for binned well capacity. This in place of building two sensors, one with small and one with large photosites. Unles I’m missing something (please let me know), the user can’t get both in a single end item (the CFA is fixed), and the advantage lies with the fabrication cost.



I agree, your theory seems correct. But from what we've seen in the GH5S, the quad bayering sensor has some of the best(if not the best) low light of any other micro 4/3, it'll be interesting to see how sharp(bad pun) it really is in this Sharp 8K camera mode. With any luck, some of the money that's saved will go into R&D for future products and not entirely into the shareholder's pockets.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 15, 2019)

DTibor said:


> Most L lenses look terrible on m43 with regular adapter (those without focal reducer lens aka speedbooster)


Yes, because they are optimized for larger sensors and thus lack the res of native lenses.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 15, 2019)

Talys said:


> One of the reasons that birders like APSC is the field of view in the viewfinder. In a 5D/6D body, with a 400-600mm lens attached, a small bird is still very small. It might turn out ok in crop, but it's hard to tell if you're even in focus through the viewfinder with a full frame camera, without going to magnification liveview, even when you have enough pixels to make a decent photograph.
> 
> For me, one of the real benefits of a high res mirrorless is that if you can toggle between crop and full frame in the EVF with the push of a button, so you can use the wider field of view to compose -- or just find your subject -- and the cropped field of view in the EVF (and further magnification if you want it) to focus, or to simply end up with much smaller files instead of cropping in post. Plus, you can't shrink the original RAW by cropping.
> 
> ...


The reason for the disappointment in µ43 images is because of the small pixel/high density issue. Any slight shortcoming will be magnified more than the FF equivalent. Just as MF prints looked so much better than 35mm prints. At small sizes and excellent technique (aided in no small part by Oly's excellent IBIS) µ43 looks splendid. My 5DsR looks splendid at FF and when cropped in close still looks great. But only with tripod mounting, careful focus and strobe.
So going to 100MP will yield an all-in -one package but that added crop mode may be far less useful than one might hope.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You're probably mixing up the MTF/resolution and 'information'. Again sharpening may increase visual sharpness, but it never actually recovers anything.



No, I'm not confused about information, and yes, sharpening and other image processing techniques can recover "lost" information. This is known and discussed in scientific fields where the information is actually of importance.

For us, for all practical intents and purposes, the resolution difference between AA/no AA cameras like the 5Ds/sr and D800/800E is not even observable, much less observable in print. What we observe is the MTF curve shift, the slight loss in contrast, something easily changed by light sharpening with no negative impact.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 15, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> The 300 Oly does have the same AOV as the FF 600. No need to make the 600.



Unless, of course, you want 1200mm equivalent.



> Your proposal is exactly the model of the µ43 but with the added bulk and expense of FF optics.
> The only "advantage" being that at FF one would now have 100MP, a dubious advantage.



The two advantages would be 100mp when using the FF, which is of significant advantage for some subject/view size combinations, and far better high ISO performance when using the FF. One camera covering multiple uses and angles. Still, I could see some people wanting an APS-C or m43 system, with the same pixel density, just to save weight on shoots where reach is the only concern.

The 5Ds replaced APS-C crop for me in long telephoto scenarios. If I have to crop it's still just as good. And in that moment when I don't have to crop...when I'm able to get close enough to the subject...it's off the charts good.


----------



## Pape (Jan 15, 2019)

Now that camera what is on harrys desk must be R5 with 100mpx, because i got one lot more powerfull on my desk, i guess it must be R1.
One i got is 150mpixel 16k video able and it got another sensor too 30mpixel one . 
Both move sideway rails under photo plane and claws of ibis locks to wanted one and raises it to right place.
Shooting speed is 5fps/sec with 150mpx and 15 fps/sec with 30mpx.Nothing spectacular but there isnt all!!
Inside neck strap goes data transfer cable from camera and behind neck on strap is socket.
Quess what you plug there  Cable from TURBO unit!!
Its 20cmx10cmx5cm box what contains slot for big battery ,10 slot for memory cards and 10x digic 9 processor. 
You can place it to backpack when its connected to camera. weighting like 1kg
Basically it can edit and write simultaneusly 10 different picture cause 10 processor and 10 card.
So it makes camera shoot 10x faster,50fp/s with 150mpx and 150 fp/s with 30mpixel,And buffer capasity is bigger too.

More about camera . Canon listened whines about how it is wasting real estate on back and upside,so now there is only onn/off button,touch bar and nothing else!!
What amazing save of real estate!!
Touch bar is now more and less adjust button.if you click shortly left side it decreases 1/3 stop ,if clicking more long left side it decreses 1 stop
If you slide from middle to left side it decreases 5 stop.You can do it fast with right thumb when left thumb adjust ring on objective and all other clumsy fingers just support camera.
In viewfinder there is little cameras what track eye movements like topgunners helmet.Bottom of backside there are also cameras what track about mouth movements.
So when you want move focus point ,opening mouth activates focus point change and all you need do is look point you want lock focus and then close mouth.
Or you can left mouth open and camera focus everywhere you look but it may not be good idea cause eyes wanders to look framing too.To shoot all you need do is stick tongue
out from mouth to middle and it shoots on burst untill you pull tongue back.
When you want change shutter speed you activate changing mode when sticking tongue out to right cheek and you change value with touch bar.
When sticking tongue straight to left cheek you activate iso changing and can adjust it from touch bar too.
All values can be changed middle of shooting too when moving tongue from middle to edge of mouth.
When you show your teeths you activate menus and you can navigate there with eye locking and tongue stick clicking ,so viewfinder does all jobs what oldfashioned touchscreens did.
Situtations where you cant look to viewfinder there is virtual reality glasses what allow you see viewfinder where ever camera is ,all eye and mouth commands works with glasses too.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Sorry didn't see your message yesterday as this forum doesn't show notifications on mobile view. Anyway, my point is, as far as I'm aware, all known sharpening methods are irreversible, you can't apply the inverse algorithm and get the original blurred image back *exactly* as it was.



I'm almost certain this is false, depending of course on algorithm and parameter range. But sharpening by convolution should be reversible within a certain parameter range.



> I agree AA filter does little harm but still does, it's evident when you compare samples from 5DS with and without the filter.



With light sharpening it's nearly impossible to discern 5Ds/sr images or D800/800E images, even while pixel peeping. I would agree that a computer could still tell them apart, but that's because the AA filter has a varying impact depending on detail contrast. So if you sharpen to match high contrast details then low contrast details on the sharpened AA filtered image are sharper than on the non-AA image. (Yes, I investigated it to that depth.)


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 15, 2019)

robotfist said:


> It’s also going to be an average (or poor) performer in low light having to cram that many pixel sensors on the chip. The more pixels the smaller the color sensors have to be to fit on the chip, which is why low megapixel cameras like the a7s can practically see in the dark.



For stills photography higher resolution sensors are observably better at high ISO, when compared at the same view size. (When pixel peeping the flaws in the higher resolution image are magnified more giving a false impression of performance.) At the same view size they have similar noise characteristics but better sharpness and detail.

"5Ds is not a high ISO camera" was a review meme that was demolished by Imaging Resource in their print tests, and I'm convinced Canon capped the max ISO for marketing reasons (i.e. because of pixel peepers). You can also prove it false by using dpreview's comparison tool using the same view size mode. The A7s does not turn in a very good performance compared against any higher resolution FF sensor. Canon, Nikon, or Sony...give me their highest resolution FF chips for high ISO stills.

Video is a different beast because we don't have processing engines that can optimally scale high resolution frames to 4k or 1080p at 24-60 fps. For video the optimum high ISO sensor might indeed be one that is resolution matched to the intended output.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 15, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon seems to be the only team left in the Megapixel wars. If 100MP sensors significantly outperform 45MP sensors why doesn't Sony use them in it's cameras or manufacture and sell them to it's sensor customers. It certainly isn't because they can't. Dividing up the Pizza into smaller and smaller pieces doesn't create more pizza.


“It certainly isn’t because they can’t “ can you back that claim up with something?


----------



## Talys (Jan 15, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> So going to 100MP will yield an all-in -one package but that added crop mode may be far less useful than one might hope.


I agree. This is why I say, I'm not sure if what I want is a pipe dream or a reality that's just a year or two away  I suspect that the 100mp camera will be somewhere in between, where it's not like I'll be able to throw on a 200 or 300mm lens and call it a day -- but where I'll be able to get better, deeper crops and where some photos will come out better than they would with 30 - 50 megapixel cameras. If that's the case, I'll probably still buy it.

On the other hand, I will say that when using the Sony a7r3, I thought that the crop mode was one of its nicest features, and that the APSC crops of 40-something megapixels was, situationally, a genuinely useful feature.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 15, 2019)

I think a 100 MP 35mm sensor camera will need a general freeze-down of the world to make full use of those tiny pixels...


----------



## Joules (Jan 15, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> I think a 100 MP 35mm sensor camera will need a general freeze-down of the world to make full use of those tiny pixels...


Those pixels are really not all that tiny.

I don't own one, but from what I can see online the Canon G7x II is not considered to be hot garbage... And it has far smaller pixels! If you would scale that 1 Inch 20MP sensor (116mm^2) up to full frame size (864mm^2) that would result in a resolution of 149 MP.

If people can get good shots today with that old sensor of that density, I can't understand why some people here assume somebody would have to do something they don't do now, like freezing the world or shooting only on a tripod, when using a sensor with the SAME density and newer, likely superior sensor technology in the future?

I'm not mad about it , it just seems weird to bring up such points when other concerns, like big file size or limited framerates are far more reasonable in my eyes.


----------



## Joules (Jan 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'm almost certain this is false, depending of course on algorithm and parameter range. But sharpening by convolution should be reversible within a certain parameter range.


Wikipedia hasbthe following to say about that:

"The usual method is to assume that the optical path through the instrument is optically perfect, convolved with a point spread function (PSF) [...] If this function can be determined, it is then a matter of computing its inverse or complementary function, and convolving the acquired image with that. The result is the *original*, undistorted image.
In *practice*, finding the true PSF is *impossible*, and usually an approximation of it is used, theoretically calculated[4] or based on some experimental estimation by using known probes. [...] The accuracy of the approximation of the PSF will dictate the final result. Different algorithms can be employed to give better results, at the price of being more computationally intensive. Since the original convolution discards data, some algorithms use additional data acquired at nearby focal points to make up some of the lost information."

So it looks to me that it is wrong to say sharpening using deconvolution can't bring back true detail. It's also right to say that what is brought back is not the 100% identical to the non convolved original in real world application.

But at that point, it seems to become splitting hairs for most cases to me. After all, the true original subject is approximated anyway through digital imaging by beeing measured in discrete pixel steps. And without an AA filter, there are also occasionally occuring artefacts - Moiree is also a mistake in the imaging process that causes the resulting image to differ from the true original. Conceptionally, where is the difference between that and sharpening artefacts? 

So keeping practical purposes a priority, I'm inclined to believe the people who have done the testing and say that the AA filter can be effectively canceld in post through mild deconvolution sharpening. That's just the impression I've got from reading though, so it doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## hugebob (Jan 15, 2019)

If Canon grants us a wider dynamic range, that will go a long way in my book.


----------



## analoggrotto (Jan 15, 2019)

I want to hear the effect "Canon's well regardedcolor science has been signficantly improved through the Dual Digic 9 implementation in this latest Rx Body". IBIS is only a few cherries.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 15, 2019)

hugebob said:


> If Canon grants us a wider dynamic range, that will go a long way in my book.


It will, but perhaps not the way most people are thinking...

Take a 100Mpixel image, downsize it to 25, and gain two stops of DR.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Jan 15, 2019)

"I don’t think we’ll see such a camera until 2020, as I believe there need to be some more native RF lenses announced to handle landscape and studio shooters."

I'd expect a 4Q 2019 release so it can attempt to compete with the GFX-100s (in resolution at least). But I don't think the hold up for such a product will be a drought of native lenses; Canon would certainly prefer to have more lenses for the RF on the market, and it seems they plan to do exactly that in 2019, but there's also plenty of L-series EF lenses that can take full advantage of a 100MP sensor at wide and moderate apertures. 

I think the hold up for this camera may just come down to delivering a highly capable IBIS system. A lot of the top-notch RF glass at this point doesn't have OIS, and you would really need some form of image stabilization to generate sharp 100MP images at flash sync shutter speeds (presumably 1/180th second). I'd be happy to wait several more months for its release if Canon can deliver a hybrid OIS/IBIS system like Oly's that uses both lens and sensor stabilization for 6+ stops of correction.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2019)

Joules said:


> Wikipedia hasbthe following to say about that:
> 
> "The usual method is to assume that the optical path through the instrument is optically perfect, convolved with a point spread function (PSF) [...] If this function can be determined, it is then a matter of computing its inverse or complementary function, and convolving the acquired image with that. The result is the *original*, undistorted image.
> In *practice*, finding the true PSF is *impossible*, and usually an approximation of it is used, theoretically calculated[4] or based on some experimental estimation by using known probes. [...] The accuracy of the approximation of the PSF will dictate the final result. Different algorithms can be employed to give better results, at the price of being more computationally intensive. Since the original convolution discards data, some algorithms use additional data acquired at nearby focal points to make up some of the lost information."
> ...


You might find this article interesting, much better written than in Wiki: https://www.microscopyu.com/techniq...the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy
It does contain the statement: "Spatial frequency information that is lost during imaging cannot be recovered"


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 15, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> It will, but perhaps not the way most people are thinking...
> 
> Take a 100Mpixel image, downsize it to 25, and gain two stops of DR.



hard clipped highlights cannot be recovered past certain point downsampled or not. you gain sharpness and extra shadow recovery through noise suppression.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Unless, of course, you want 1200mm equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, like everyone, 1200mm is the one I am always reaching for. 

When I got my DsR for architecture clients I thought that it would be a quantum step up i IQ. What it was, was a step up in processing time with excellent but not useful improvements in resolution. Side by side comparisons of tripod mounted shots at 30x40" showed a slight but nearly indiscernible improvement in sharpness. Going larger shows the difference more clearly but the proper viewing distance eliminates the difference.
Then some clients whined about getting massive files.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 15, 2019)

Viggo said:


> “It certainly isn’t because they can’t “ can you back that claim up with something?


Google is your friend here. Canon's highest density sensor has a pixel size of 4.1 microns. Sony has an entire line of sensors with much smaller pixels all the way down 1.0 microns. How many 1.0 micron pixels you could put on a full frame sensor? I'm not going to do the math but it's a lot more than 100 million. I like Canon's system and I'm no Sony fan but you are kidding yourself if you think Canon is ahead of Sony in sensor development.

edit: sorry, forgot about the sensor in the 80D. That one is 3.7 microns.
Also important to remember that it's a linear measurement so Sixteen 1-micron pixels fit into the same area as One 4-micron pixel. Fair to say that Sony is pretty good at small pixels.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 15, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Google is your friend here. Canon's highest density sensor has a pixel size of 4.1 microns. Sony has an entire line of sensors with much smaller pixels all the way down 1.0 microns. How many 1.0 micron pixels you could put on a full frame sensor? I'm not going to do the math but it's a lot more than 100 million. I like Canon's system and I'm no Sony fan but you are kidding yourself if you think Canon is ahead of Sony in sensor development.
> 
> edit: sorry, forgot about the sensor in the 80D. That one is 3.7 microns.
> Also important to remember that it's a linear measurement so Sixteen 1-micron pixels fit into the same area as One 4-micron pixel. Fair to say that Sony is pretty good at small pixels.


If you look at the 1/2.3 sensors, scaling up a 16Mpixel sensor to FF size gets you 485Mpixels. I think that everyone and their dog has the ability to pack lots of pixels on a FF sensor.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 15, 2019)

Yes, that's the point I was originally trying to make. Maybe Canon's 100 MP sensor will be awesome but other manufacturers seem to be targeting much lower pixel counts for full frame sensors and it's not because they can't do 100. I guess we won't know until/unless they stop teasing and release something.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 15, 2019)

Joules said:


> Those pixels are really not all that tiny.
> 
> I don't own one, but from what I can see online the Canon G7x II is not considered to be hot garbage... And it has far smaller pixels! If you would scale that 1 Inch 20MP sensor (116mm^2) up to full frame size (864mm^2) that would result in a resolution of 149 MP.



Okay, you're right, I raise my little white flag. But I just was in a mood to make such a joke yesterday. Seriously, I think Instagram deserves a fast introduction of 500+ MP cameras...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 15, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I think that everyone and their dog has the ability to pack lots of pixels on a FF sensor.



Their dogs? Talking about pixel peeing?


----------



## flip314 (Jan 15, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> hard clipped highlights cannot be recovered past certain point downsampled or not. you gain sharpness and extra shadow recovery through noise suppression.



I hope that some day sensor manufacturers can figure out a way to have highlights degrade better. Adding some kind of a knee past a certain exposure would help to make up one of the few areas where film still has an advantage. 

I nearly almost shoot my Canon at -2/3 exposure compensation just to make sure I don't blow out parts of the sky.


----------



## Pape (Jan 16, 2019)

camera could take picture only from higlights before it takes picture and save it as backup if photograph wants fuse them later.
Could use 10x fasted shutter speed for that ,if camera just can do 2 shot with short enough interval.


----------



## Pape (Jan 16, 2019)

i wonder if it would be best to abandon whole ibis consept on still cameras. Thing is we cant do all stuff with just one sensor like we cant do all stuff with one lens optimally.
How about interchangable sensor cassettes ,all with different pixel density . from ultra fast 5mpix to slow 100mpix


----------



## Joules (Jan 16, 2019)

Pape said:


> camera could take picture only from higlights before it takes picture and save it as backup if photograph wants fuse them later.
> Could use 10x fasted shutter speed for that ,if camera just can do 2 shot with short enough interval.


Anything involving multiple images for dynamic range improvements will result in motion artifacts in some situations.

Canon could also just make access to the extra stop of dynamic range from the dual pixel sensors that is currently discarded easier.

Also, I don't think we will see modular sensors for these types of cameras. Interchangeable lenses with different mounts already offer a degree of flexibility and complexity that large parts of the market don't use or find confusing. And if people could just upgrade their sensor instead of a whole body to get IQ improvements over time, that might also hurt the manufacturer's profits.

And also, can a high resolution sensor not do everything a low res one can, if it has some good hardware binning implemented?


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 16, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yeah, like everyone, 1200mm is the one I am always reaching for.



I was merely making the point that even higher density FF sensors from Canon would widen the envelope given Canon's lens lineup. And yes, there are wildlife photographers who would kill for 1200mm equivalent from their 600mm lenses.



> When I got my DsR for architecture clients I thought that it would be a quantum step up i IQ. What it was, was a step up in processing time with excellent but not useful improvements in resolution. Side by side comparisons of tripod mounted shots at 30x40" showed a slight but nearly indiscernible improvement in sharpness.



Architecture, at that print size, is not something I would expect to benefit greatly from 50mp. I've said before that as much as I love the resolution and IQ I get from my 5Ds, we are clearly in a realm of diminishing returns as 24mp is enough for really excellent 20x30" prints of virtually any subject.

Very large prints of landscapes, fashion, and product advertising probably benefit the most from 50mp (or higher).

That said...something a D800E owning friend once said to me finally made sense when I started shooting the 5Ds, and it's actually the opposite of what the Internet would have you believe. _"High resolution covers many sins."_ When you're starting at 36 or 50mp and your subject/print size combo only needs 16-20mp to 'saturate' the viewer with detail, you have a lot of room to maneuver in post. Whether that be cropping, sharpening, NR, etc. My files are larger but my work is less since going high resolution FF.

Any way...we know Canon is going higher resolution with their R-based 5Ds/sr replacement. Whether that will be 60mp, 75mp, 100mp is unknown at this point. But I'm sure there will still be ~30mp bodies for those who don't want to deal with the file sizes. 100mp is definitely for a specific niche, not for everyone.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 16, 2019)

Joules said:


> Canon could also just make access to the extra stop of dynamic range from the dual pixel sensors that is currently discarded.



Why on Earth aren't they doing that? Why didn't they do it from the beginning? Bake it into the RAW file in camera, don't even require a special file format or converter to extract it. Completely forget about the two features currently advertised for DPRAW since no one is really using them. This would literally put the 5D IV on par with the D8x0 series at #1 in terms of DR.



> Also, I don't think we will see modular sensors for these types of cameras.



It would be interesting to see a camera with interchangeable sensors. I'm imagining a 'cartridge' of some sort that slides into the bottom of a DSLR/MILC. The image processor and data bus would be fixed, so a high resolution sensor cart might only yield 5 fps while a lower resolution one would yield 10 fps. And yet another might be optimized for 4k video.

I don't think we will see such a beast, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. MF has had interchangeable backs forever.



> And also, can a high resolution sensor not do everything a low res one can, if it has some good hardwere binning implemented?



In theory smaller pixels should lead to lower DR. In practice the highest DR cameras on the market right now are 42 and 45mp 35mm sensors. So at the moment, yes, for stills a high resolution sensor can do anything a lower resolution one can do and more.

Video is a different beast.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 16, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Yes, that's the point I was originally trying to make. Maybe Canon's 100 MP sensor will be awesome but other manufacturers seem to be targeting much lower pixel counts for full frame sensors and it's not because they can't do 100. I guess we won't know until/unless they stop teasing and release something.



45 and 42mp are not "much lower" pixel counts. Canon has split their lineup in pretty much the same fashion as Nikon and Sony. They just target slightly higher MP counts at each tier (24 vs. 26 or 30; 42/45 vs. 50).

Also: you can't extrapolate tiny sensor pixel densities to FF. I'm not saying Sony can't do 100mp FF sensors. I sure they can and eventually will. But there are additional challenges when scaling a given pixel density up to a larger chip. I don't think Canon or Sony can do a 100mp 35mm sensor at an acceptable price point today, though I imagine we're not far from that.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 16, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> My 5DsR looks splendid at FF and when cropped in close still looks great. But only with tripod mounting, careful focus and strobe.



This must be a matter of opinion since I've found the 5Ds produces excellent cropped images and I shoot handheld without a flash *shrug*


----------



## scyrene (Jan 16, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I hope that some day sensor manufacturers can figure out a way to have highlights degrade better. Adding some kind of a knee past a certain exposure would help to make up one of the few areas where film still has an advantage.
> 
> I nearly almost shoot my Canon at -2/3 exposure compensation just to make sure I don't blow out parts of the sky.



That's interesting. I think it's more common (on older Canon sensors at least) to overexpose (ETTR). Shooting raw, there's a lot more info in highlights that initially appear blown, and one gets used to how far it's possible to overexpose before hitting the limits (I'm sure you know this, apologies for perhaps stating the obvious). But for high DR scenes I'd be tempted to bracket exposures in any case, to make sure (obviously this also has well-understood limitations). I do agree though with the inference that blown highlights are uglier than clipped shadows.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 16, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yeah, like everyone, 1200mm is the one I am always reaching for.
> 
> When I got my DsR for architecture clients I thought that it would be a quantum step up i IQ. What it was, was a step up in processing time with excellent but not useful improvements in resolution. Side by side comparisons of tripod mounted shots at 30x40" showed a slight but nearly indiscernible improvement in sharpness. Going larger shows the difference more clearly but the proper viewing distance eliminates the difference.
> Then some clients whined about getting massive files.


But what he didn't tell you is that the Olympus bodies have a built in 2x electronic tele-converter... so 1200mm after all (equivalent FOV).


----------



## cayenne (Jan 16, 2019)

docsmith said:


> For me, the first thing I will look at if this is ever released will be the file size of mRAW and sRAW. If they are something like 25 MB and 50 MB, I could be tempted by this camera and typically shoot in one of those modes with occasionally breaking out the full RAW resolution of 100 MP.



Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?


Because you want to by a 100Mpixel camera for high resolution and use it in low? Because you think that a jpg is good enough? Because you never take a picture that has both bright highlights and shadows? Because you don't know what colour balancing is? Because you have always shot perfect exposure? Because you think lens correction data is for sissies? Because you don't believe in correcting chromatic aberration? See, all kind of reasons!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Because you want to by a 100Mpixel camera for high resolution and use it in low? Because you think that a jpg is good enough? Because you never take a picture that has both bright highlights and shadows? Because you don't know what colour balancing is? Because you have always shot perfect exposure? Because you think lens correction data is for sissies? Because you don't believe in correcting chromatic aberration? See, all kind of reasons!



I actually used mraw quite a bit when I was shooting with my 1D4 and 5DII back in the day. Canon was the only player offering sraw and mraw at the time (at least to my knowledge) and I would keep the cameras on mraw to get editing latitude without dealing with huge raw files on travel assignments where I would shoot thousands of images over a week. For comparison, the H6d-100 (100MP) shoots 220MB raws. A 128GB card can store only about 580 images, so if you were on assignment and shot 5000 images, you would be dealing with over 1TB of images. An sRaw would be a great setting without giving up too much flexibility vs shooting JPEGs.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 16, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?


None of Don's reasons 

Jay is on the right track. Start with file size. Using 32 GB files, assuming the typically 100 MB full RAW file is ~120 MB, that is 266 pictures per 32 GB card. For every 10,000 pictures it would be 1.2 TB. 

If needed, ok, buy bigger memory cards, more hard drives, and put up with the additional processing time. But a lot of time, for what I shoot, it really wouldn't be needed. I've seen a couple of comparisons of sRAW vs mRAW vs RAW and it is tough to see much of a difference. Nothing like jpegs. 

The other reason is simply I would prefer a more flexible camera and the ability to make adjustments depending on what and how I am shooting. Getting that flexibility out of a single camera would be amazing. 

If you stop thinking about 100 MB as resolution and think of the data simply as information, at full RAW, you would have 100+ MB of information for a given image. For a 100 MB camera, ideally it could then drop down to m/s RAW and have say 25 or 50 MB of information. If compressed well (and not throwing away bits), how different would that be from the current ~35 MB of information I am happily getting from my 5DIV?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2019)

docsmith said:


> None of Don's reasons
> 
> Jay is on the right track. Start with file size. Using 32 GB files, assuming the typically 100 MB full RAW file is ~120 MB, that is 266 pictures per 32 GB card. For every 10,000 pictures it would be 1.2 TB.
> 
> ...


I was just trying to be funny.....

I shoot a lot for work in sRAW. most of the pictures are for technical documentation and do not need to be very large or detailed. For the few important pictures that may be published, yes, shoot big, but that is the exception to the rule...… and this is with 26Mpixels! If I had a 100Mpixel camera it would live on sRAW except for those same few occasions where I was pushing the camera.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I was just trying to be funny.....



Sure...you got a smile out of me.. hence the


----------



## Phynx2019 (Jan 16, 2019)

captainkanji said:


> I hope it comes in at under $4,000. I’m eager to try out a high MP body for my trip.


Under $4,000.00 hahaha, you do realize that it's Canon! Not saying it won't be good, but if Canon sticks to there normal marketing approach, it also won't be cheap. My guess would be in the $6,000.00 range.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 17, 2019)

scyrene said:


> This must be a matter of opinion since I've found the 5Ds produces excellent cropped images and I shoot handheld without a flash *shrug*


Yeah, I can get great results handheld also. But the tripod still gets the last increment of IQ I paid for.


----------



## Pape (Jan 17, 2019)

Even dog could shoot sharp pics with 1/2000 s shutter speed without tripod


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The reason no one is using Foveon style sensors is precisely because they are so terrible in low light. None of the layers are "trapping" all of the photons falling on that layer or there wouldn't be anything left for the layer(s) underneath. There is nothing intrinsically different about a photon of "green" light and a photon of "blue" light except the frequency at which it is vibrating.



===

Actually, the greatest issue within the Foveon sensors, is the pass-through capabilities of the Bandpass filters used in the sensors themselves. Each layer SHOULD BE sensitive ONLY to the specified frequencies (i.e. wavelengths) for each the Red, Green and Blue colours and then REJECT AND/OR ALLOW NEARLY FULL PASS-THROUGH of all others. A Foveon stacked photosite uses chemical dopants that allow the EM waves within specific R, G and B colour bands to penetrate to the different depths within the CMOS layers (silicon).

Unfortunately, Sigma has manufacturing issues SPECIFICALLY with the Red colour channel material which is cross-contaminating the upper green (the brightest colour seen by the human eye) and bottom blue layer such that low light colour rendition is sloppy. They need to add Indium or maybe Copper and then the specific RGB layers can be made to emit a greater electrical signal making said layer "More Sensitive". Since Foveon is a MATURE technology, the dopants used for specific EM band "colour sensitivity" have stayed the same while NEWER materials are now available!

I would say Canon OR Sony simply BUY Sigma and update the dopants to allow higher photon sensitivity for the given RGB layer. The Foveon technology, not requiring de-Bayering, is more colour accurate (aka more true-to-life). It's the closest to what we see in real life when it comes to colour rendition BUT the actual photon-to-electrical-signal conversion process is flawed because of OUTDATED dopants than can be redone to increase (based upon what an Engineer I have talked to has indicated!) by an amount of luminance sensitivity in the range of 25% AND MORE maybe even 40% !!!

If that change was make, I would say we are getting into Sony A7s2 equivalencies at a photosite size that's around 6 to 8 microns which is SMALLER than the around 12 microns per photosite that the Sony uses! Not only is the photosite size SMALLER but the actually RGB pixel layer sensitivity itself IS GREATER so you are actually doubling the overall sensitivity of the entire sensor. Ergo, an APS-C sensor image using the re-made Foveon technology at the same resolution would be BRIGHTER with LESS NOISE than a normal Bayer sensor image at Full Frame size! NOW THAT would be a treat to see AND I understand Panasonic and SOny are actually persuing those very strategies of using a variable-type of NEWER dopants in their own versions of Stacked RGB layer image sensors!

ON a technical note, I DO SUSPECT that within each square area of the individual stacked RGB layers, the dopants ARE NOT adequately and/or fully being diffused throughout the width, height and depth of the individual layer. This means incoming photons of a given wavelength are NOT being passed through to the next layer OR NOT BEING ABSORBED PROPERLY into the current photosensitive layer as a cumulatively emitted electrical charge! Rather being converted into heat instead (i.e. into thermal rather than electrical energy)! A more precision doping mechanism may be needed for the individual Red, Green and Blue photosensitive layers to increase overall charge accumulation!
.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 17, 2019)

Funny how a forum member can solve all the problems, yet a huge multinational can not.....


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Funny how a forum member can solve all the problems, yet a huge multinational can not.....


Multinational companies can't afford *geniuses* know-it-alls and psychics. Those are all employed by the fact manufacturing plants anyway.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yeah, I can get great results handheld also. But the tripod still gets the last increment of IQ I paid for.


You also claimed you needed strobe lighting.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Multinational companies can't afford *geniuses* know-it-alls and psychics. Those are all employed by the fact manufacturing plants anyway.



Harry is not claiming to have solved the problems, he is simply stating what one of the major problems with Foveon technology is and is suggesting that it is an opportunity for Canon or Sony to use their capabilities to improve the technology. Harry often has interesting points to make, and I have learned some things from him. Canon does file patents in Foveon technology.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> Actually, the greatest issue within the Foveon sensors, is the pass-through capabilities of the Bandpass filters used in the sensors themselves. Each layer SHOULD BE sensitive ONLY to the specified frequencies (i.e. wavelengths) for each the Red, Green and Blue colours and then REJECT AND/OR ALLOW NEARLY FULL PASS-THROUGH of all others. A Foveon stacked photosite uses chemical dopants that allow the EM waves within specific R, G and B colour bands to penetrate to the different depths within the CMOS layers (silicon).
> 
> ...



If you do that you lose the ability to synthesize most of the colors we expect. The way the human eye/brain system works is due to the amount of overlap between the sensitivities of the three types of cones in our retinas. If there was no overlap, we'd be able to perceive three and only three different colors, rather that the millions of colors our eye/brain systems are capable of perceiving. The reason debayering information from sensors with CFAs works so well is because it mimics the way our brain processes information from our retinas.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Google is your friend here. Canon's highest density sensor has a pixel size of 4.1 microns. Sony has an entire line of sensors with much smaller pixels all the way down 1.0 microns. How many 1.0 micron pixels you could put on a full frame sensor? I'm not going to do the math but it's a lot more than 100 million. I like Canon's system and I'm no Sony fan but you are kidding yourself if you think Canon is ahead of Sony in sensor development.
> 
> edit: sorry, forgot about the sensor in the 80D. That one is 3.7 microns.
> Also important to remember that it's a linear measurement so Sixteen 1-micron pixels fit into the same area as One 4-micron pixel. Fair to say that Sony is pretty good at small pixels.



You also seem to have forgotten many of the sensors in Canon's studio broadcast cameras and other types of cameras with sensors significantly smaller than APS-C.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2019)

Joules said:


> Anything involving multiple images for dynamic range improvements will result in motion artifacts in some situations.
> 
> Canon could also just make access to the extra stop of dynamic range from the dual pixel sensors that is currently discarded easier.
> 
> ...



In terms of full well capacity, no it can not. Specifically, if the field density of the light falling on a sensor is highly variable from one pixel to the next (such as when doing astrophotography), four smaller pixels will have at least one that clips before a single pixel with 4X the area will.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You also claimed you needed strobe lighting.


Yes, strobe will sharpen it up even more.
Try it sometime and compare to any handheld image.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Yes, strobe will sharpen it up even more.
> Try it sometime and compare to any handheld image.


With bird and wildlife photos?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> With bird and wildlife photos?


A lot of fanatical birders use the "better beamer" on a 600 flash. The images are nice.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> A lot of fanatical birders use the "better beamer" on a 600 flash. The images are nice.


Yes, but Norm is talking about strobes!
The best set up is the sun behind you and a shutter speed of 1/2000s or faster.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> With bird and wildlife photos?


It's done with birds all the time. More importantly my point is that to get maximum sharpness from a high MP camera you need a sturdy tripod, high shutter speed and also Strobe if possible.
Some cases do not allow for strobe so then, absent a tripod your high MP camera is not delivering the res you paid for.
Just physics.
Sorry you are sad.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> It's done with birds all the time. More importantly my point is that to get maximum sharpness from a high MP camera you need a sturdy tripod, high shutter speed and also Strobe if possible.
> Some cases do not allow for strobe so then, absent a tripod your high MP camera is not delivering the res you paid for.
> Just physics.
> Sorry you are sad.


The sadness is that all too many people think it is acceptable behaviour to make gratuitous comments like that rather than simply present a logical case.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 19, 2019)

I am going to suggest to you that it is actual converted PHOTO COUNT rather than overlap of the RGB sensitivities of the cones in the human retina that determine overall colour information. It seems that the chemicals that handle Luminance sensitive (i.e. brightness) of the Human eye's RODS, only get activated when a threshold level of photons are no longer being converted in the Cones (colour receptors) on a when-not-enought-photons-activating-an-areal-basis. Basically, if not enough parts of each CONE sensor (colour receptor) emit a signal ready for transmission into the optic nerve, then the RODS get activated and a more-sensitive photon count layer does the work of brightness detection. This process takes TIME which is WHY we humans needs to adjust our daylight vision into nighttime for some minutes in order to perceive objects in low light levels.

While on a wavelength basis there is overlap, it seems our brains have built-in software that inherently mixes the emitted Red, Green Blue photo counts to create any given PERCEIVED colour which will vary among individuals depending upon base genetics and the underlying chemistry with a person's cones and rods. It seems that specific amounts of the base Photopsin (i.e. Cone Opsin) proteins will determine HOW sensitive your eye is to specific wavelengths. And based upon what I am seeing in the organics chemistry-portion of my mind, I could swear I am seeing chemicals not far removed from OLED-based photon emissive chemistry and CCD-based photon sensor chemistry. It seems we humans have done basic Bio-Mimicry of evolved genetic processes that produce a photo-sensitive layer in an organic and/or inorganic substrate.

What this means is that it takes a certain number of photons in order to excite the proteins in each Cone type (i.e. Long, Middle and Short Wavelength Opsins aka Red, Green, Blue colours), and it is the BRAIN (Visual Cortex) which does the higher-level of mixing to give us an optimal rendition of the currently viewed scene. It seems our visual cortex does live realtime RGB colour correction, luma and gamma correction and even a bit of edge detection to optimize our local viewing environment. We humans now have the ability to IMPROVE upon the human eye by changing the chemicals (dopants) and substrates (CMOS/GaAs/GaN/BN) used to form modern image sensors to those that are more sensitive to specific bands of light.

---

It does seem that Sigma is having issues manufacturing the Red portion of the photosensitive Foveon layers which is causing more noise and lower overall image luminance levels. What Sigma HAS NOT YET DONE is to change the actual chemistry to reflect modern photosensitive and transmissive CMOS layers chemistry which would RESTORE overall image brightness and have less noise contaminating the dark areas of an image. In a stack RGB layer modality, image sensors could be LARGER in size per square area or MORE NUMEROUS per square area which would result in a more sensitive image sensor OR a higher resolution image sensor!

Sigma NOW HAS the modern manufacturing infrastructure and organic/inorganic chemistry expertise to make a sensor that is BOTH more sensitive overall AND has a higher resolution! Ergo, It wouldn't be all that hard for them to make 24 to 30 megapixel image sensors at APS-C and Full Frame sizes that are on par with the Sony A7s2's light gathering prowess at a price that would allow them to be put on a $2000 camera body!

It's Just Chemistry!
.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You also seem to have forgotten many of the sensors in Canon's studio broadcast cameras and other types of cameras with sensors significantly smaller than APS-C.



---

Canon has GREAT one-inch, 2/3rds inch sensor cameras and even 1/2 inch sensor cameras with some pretty high pixel counts but i have noticed that when they wanted more pixels they went to a larger sensor such as APS-H for a 250 megapixel camera and to an 8.1 by 8.1 inch (200mm+ PER side!) wafer for their 448 pixel 60 fps sensor which I have talked about in earlier posts! Canon can DEFINITELY MAKE a proper high resolution sensor since they ALREADY HAVE MADE 120, 250 and even 448 megapixel CMOS sensors! AND add in a 4 MILLION ISO ultra-low-light-sensitive image sensor! Right now they CHOOSE NOT to showcase that image sensor manufacturing prowess in a consumer or prosumer DSLR or Mirrorless camera product.
.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Yes, but Norm is talking about strobes!


What is the difference between a flash and a strobe?


----------



## Pape (Jan 19, 2019)

i believe strobe can make many fast flash on row without needing stop recharge?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2019)

Pape said:


> i believe strobe can make many fast flash on row without needing stop recharge?


Aha, I now see the problem. You are correct. But, there is a US/British English language divide. It seems that Americans sometimes use strobe and flash interchangeably whereas I don’t. Often, however, US usage eventually spills over into British.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2019)

Pape said:


> i believe strobe can make many fast flash on row without needing stop recharge?


You mean like the 600 flash? Or my studio flash?


----------



## Pape (Jan 19, 2019)

looks like i got language misunderstanding sorry don


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 19, 2019)

I typically use “strobe” for studio lights, even if they have a long cycle time, and “flash” for speedlights.

And within the family of strobes are monolights (power pack built into the light head).


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 19, 2019)

Talys said:


> The real use for me with a 100 megapixel camera would be to get more reach out of existing lenses, or to be able to use smaller lenses, for birding and other wildlife photography. So, what it comes down to is, are two things: first, how good are heavily cropped photos? Secondly, when a 100 megapixel image is taken under ideal lighting and reduced down to 5 megapixels or so, how much better or worse is it compared to a 30-ish megapixel camera reduced down to 5-10 megapixels?
> 
> In reality, every single time, a 1DX with the ideal focal length lens (ie no cropping required) reduced down to print or screen resolutions produces better results than a camera with a lot more megapixels and a lens with a lot less focal length.
> 
> ...



If EOS R 30 mpx shoot at maximum 5FPS, what's FPS for 100 mpx?

If I'm a wild life photographer, I would prefer animal eyeAF and a much faster burst FPS not 100 mpx camera that will slow to cull and edit.

IBIS: Canon is the only camera manufacture not having IBIS for FF mirrorless.
Panasonic, Nikon, Sony all have it for full frame camera.

Even if I'm not going to ever use it, I would want more bang for my money if Canon is going to charge the same price. Same goes for eyeAF, dual card slot, slog, etc.

I also never use video feature on my Canon 5D IV but I'm not going to "I still don't really care, but it would be wonderful just to shut up the people who go on " for those who need it.


----------



## Talys (Jan 19, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> If EOS R 30 mpx shoot at maximum 5FPS, what's FPS for 100 mpx?
> 
> If I'm a wild life photographer, I would prefer animal eyeAF and a much faster burst FPS not 100 mpx camera that will slow to cull and edit.
> 
> ...


Surely you don't think that Canon is incapable of building a camera faster than 30mp / 5fps. That's simply what Canon is offering for a midrange $2,000 camera.

The complaint that that 100 megapixels will slow cull and edit (ie files are too large), that isn't unique to wildlife. I mean, 1,000 photos at 100 megapixels whether it's a wedding or a day in a safari is the same thing, right? People make the same argument about the 5DSR (or the A7R3). I don't think there's any question that some people like the additional reach of that higher density/more pixels offers.

Regarding eye AF for animals, this will be a unique feature to Sony, when it comes out next month. I'm sure it will be extensively evaluated when it it's out, and yes, this sounds like a great feature, especially for cat photos, or for bird portraits. On the other hand, for A9/A7, I think it will be much less useful for bird in flight, because frankly, these cameras suck for bird in flight photos. The autofocus is just a pitiful compared to similarly priced DSLRs, and especially with lenses and extenders that have smaller apertures, the keeper rate is just miserable.

I mean, if most of my photos are not in focus at all, I'm not going to hold my breath that the eye AF will be meaningful 

IBIS: it's coming, for Canon, right? At the moment, you either buy a camera with IBIS, or you buy a camera with DPAF. You can't get both, but soon you'll be able to.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 19, 2019)

Talys said:


> Surely you don't think that Canon is incapable of building a camera faster than 30mp / 5fps. That's simply what Canon is offering for a midrange $2,000 camera.
> 
> The complaint that that 100 megapixels will slow cull and edit (ie files are too large), that isn't unique to wildlife. I mean, 1,000 photos at 100 megapixels whether it's a wedding or a day in a safari is the same thing, right? People make the same argument about the 5DSR (or the A7R3). I don't think there's any question that some people like the additional reach of that higher density/more pixels offers.
> 
> ...





> Surely you don't think that Canon is incapable of building a camera faster than 30mp


They may get it faster than 5 FPS but I wouldn't expect a significant increase at 100 mpx.



> Canon is offering for a midrange $2,000 camera.


Canon EOS R has MSRP of $2300 not $2000. It's a disappointment you called EOS R a midrange when Sony A7III is their "entry" mirrorless with dual card slot, joystick, uncropped 4K, better eyeAF, and IBIS albeit worst EVF and ergonomic.



> The complaint that that 100 megapixels will slow cull and edit (ie files are too large), that isn't unique to wildlife. I mean, 1,000 photos at 100 megapixels whether it's a wedding or a day in a safari is the same thing, right?



You brought it up wild life where 100 mpx is beneficial. As a wedding and portrait photographer, I wouldn't consider any camera more than 30 mpx Canon 5D IV and I print large canvas for my clients.

1000 photos is on the low end for 8 hours wedding with one photographer. Multiple shooters, dual camera, longer day and more elabroate wedding will mean A LOT more photo than 1000 photo.

There are a lot of application for animal eyeAF. I don't think it will works great with bird in flight but not all wildlife shooters shoot bird in flight. It will works better in some circumstances than others but at least they have it and Sony is trying. I don't shoot animal but I can appreciate Sony providing those features to those who do.

Having tried EOS R extensively for a month, Canon eyeAF still way behind compared to A7III, A7RIII and A9 I tested.



> IBIS: it's coming, for Canon, right?


Yes it's coming, the big question is WHEN? We had rumors Canon FF mirrorless coming in 2016. 

When we finally got FF mirrorless, it's a disappointment for pro in many ways.

DPAF doesn't matter to me as a still only photographer, but I'm sure it's beneficial to hybrid shooter or videographer.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I typically use “strobe” for studio lights, even if they have a long cycle time, and “flash” for speedlights.


Those are the conventional meanings and B&H use those definitions for their sales, and that is what I am used to, which is why I queried the use of “strobes” for bird photography.


----------



## Talys (Jan 19, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> They may get it faster than 5 FPS but I wouldn't expect a significant increase at 100 mpx.


You made it sound like Canon can only make a 30 megapixel 5fps camera. Obviously, this is not so. The EOS R is Canon's first MILC, not the pinnacle of Canon's mirrorless technology, never to be superceded. No, Canon's first 100 megapixel camera isn't going to be 16fps camera. _You can't have it all_.



bokehmon22 said:


> You brought it up wild life where 100 mpx is beneficial. As a wedding and portrait photographer, I wouldn't consider any camera more than 30 mpx Canon 5D IV and I print large canvas for my clients.
> 
> 1000 photos is on the low end for 8 hours wedding with one photographer. Multiple shooters, dual camera, longer day and more elabroate wedding will mean A LOT more photo than 1000 photo.


So, 3,000 photos. What does it matter? Are you saying you don't want a 100 megapixel camera, or that you never want a Canon 100 megapixel camera, or that you don't want a Canon camera? There are plenty of people who say the same thing about a 50 megapixel or 43 megapixel camera. _Solution: don't buy one of those_. There are plenty of choices.




bokehmon22 said:


> There are a lot of application for animal eyeAF. I don't think it will works great with bird in flight but not all wildlife shooters shoot bird in flight. It will works better in some circumstances than others but at least they have it and Sony is trying. I don't shoot animal but I can appreciate Sony providing those features to those who do.



I agree. But do you think, nobody else will ever have animal eye AF?




bokehmon22 said:


> Having tried EOS R extensively for a month, Canon eyeAF still way behind compared to A7III, A7RIII and A9 I tested.



Having tried the A7R3 extensively for a few months, I prefer the Canon implementation because it doesn't require pushing another button. Sony must agree, because they're changing their Eye AF so that you also don't have to push an extra button. Sony is making Canon do some new things and vice versa. It's a win-win for photographers. I'm happy when camera vendors take great ideas from each other and implement it in their systems. 



bokehmon22 said:


> Yes it's coming, the big question is WHEN? We had rumors Canon FF mirrorless coming in 2016.
> 
> DPAF doesn't matter to me as a still only photographer, but I'm sure it's beneficial to hybrid shooter or videographer.



So, please be happy with your Sony. I'm truly happy for every Sony owner that feels that they have their ideal camera. I do not try to convert them to DSLR or Canon. Please be considerate enough to understand that there are people who have different priorities, viewpoints and preferences than you.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 19, 2019)

> So, please be happy with your Sony. I'm truly happy for every Sony owner that feels that they have their ideal camera. I do not try to convert them to DSLR or Canon. Please be considerate enough to understand that there are people who have different priorities, viewpoints and preferences than you.



I don't own a Sony. 



> Regarding IBIS: I still don't really care, but *it would be wonderful just to shut up the people *who go on and on about how the R doesn't have IBIS



Yes that's very considerate of you.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 19, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Yes that's very considerate of you.



I think he meant it would be wonderful for canon to introduce it so we could stop reading complaints about them not.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I think he meant it would be wonderful for canon to introduce it so we could stop reading complaints about them not.



I know what he meant. I completely agree with what he recently said, "that there are people who have different priorities, viewpoints and preferences". Photographers have have different needs/want. If they need IBIS, so be it.

Also, once Canon photographer have IBIS, there will be something else to complain about.

With 4 major company in FF mirrorless, there are going to be alot of features people wish Canon have and will complain about.


----------



## Talys (Jan 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I think he meant it would be wonderful for canon to introduce it so we could stop reading complaints about them not.



Yes, that is precisely what I was saying, thank you.


----------



## Talys (Jan 19, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> I know what he meant. I completely agree with what he recently said, "that there are people who have different priorities, viewpoints and preferences". Photographers have have different needs/want. If they need IBIS, so be it.
> 
> Also, once Canon photographer have IBIS, there will be something else to complain about.
> 
> With 4 major company in FF mirrorless, there are going to be alot of features people wish Canon have and will complain about.


There's nothing wrong with a Canon owner wanting a feature that Sony or Nikon implements, or vice versa. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to expect Canon or another manufacturer to have _every desirable feature_. Nobody expects that from a car or a laptop.

There are certain things that Canon just does better, like tethering and DPAF. There are certain things that Canon does worse like subject lock/tracking and IBIS. The list is really long, and it's incumbent upon a prospective buyer of a $2,000 body / $5,000-$15,000+ system to choose wisely and with a holistic, long term view, rather than just that IBIS or DPAF or DR wins it all.


----------



## dba101 (Jan 20, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon EOS R has MSRP of $2300 not $2000. It's a disappointment you called EOS R a midrange when Sony A7III is their "entry" mirrorless with dual card slot, joystick, uncropped 4K, better eyeAF, and IBIS albeit worst EVF and ergonomic.



Toys/Pram...go figure
If you cannot see into the EVF very well, and you cannot hold the thing, then whats the point?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 21, 2019)

dba101 said:


> Toys/Pram...go figure
> If you cannot see into the EVF very well, and you cannot hold the thing, then whats the point?



Everyone have different priority. The Sony A7III isn't for me either but it is a much better camera then my Canon 6D when I first started doing paid work and it's a better camera for some people too. People don't seem to have problem with the EVF and can deal with ergonomic with ergonomic by adding L bracket/battery. They were sold out in many places is an indication some people don't mind it, but I do.

People can say the same about EOS R and its short comings. Some people want a hassle free dual card slot for backup, 4K, etc.

Honestly both Sony & Canon FF mirrorless are full of compromises.

I'm considering Panasonic S1: Highest resolution EVF, ergonomic and weather-sealed, touch screen menu, dual IS, modern sensor, dual card slot, eyeAF, high resolution mode. Let's see if it can deliver.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 21, 2019)

Talys said:


> There's nothing wrong with a Canon owner wanting a feature that Sony or Nikon implements, or vice versa. On the other hand, I think it's unreasonable to expect Canon or another manufacturer to have _every desirable feature_. Nobody expects that from a car or a laptop.
> 
> There are certain things that Canon just does better, like tethering and DPAF. There are certain things that Canon does worse like subject lock/tracking and IBIS. The list is really long, and it's incumbent upon a prospective buyer of a $2,000 body / $5,000-$15,000+ system to choose wisely and with a holistic, long term view, rather than just that IBIS or DPAF or DR wins it all.



I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect manufactures to have the most desirable features in their camera.

IBIS: Nikon, Panasonic, Sony have it except for Canon.
4K uncropped: Sony, Nikon and maybe Panasonic. Canon nope.
EyeAF: All have it.
Ergonomic: Panasonic, Canon and Nikon have great ergonomic except for Sony.
EVF: Sony has the poorest EVF.

Things like articulating screen on EOS R is what some Sony and Panasonic users are asking as well.

I expect alot of desirable features for a laptop if I'm paying a lot of money for.
Latest processor, GPU, infinity screen with close to 100% Adobe RGB, USB C, 1TB NVME storage, 32GB of ram, SD card reader

Laptop get refresh yearly and can be upgrade. You can't upgrade a camera internals. It's expensive equipments that you are somewhat married to an ecosystem of lens and light kit.

I have been looking hollistically FF mirrorless in general especially now I want to upgrade my DSLR. DPAF and tethering isn't on my list of priority. I'm waiting to see how Panasonic will do.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 21, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> I'm considering Panasonic S1: ...fully weather seal[ed]



I wish someone could define that for me. What does fully mean? Like, any conceivable environment?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I wish someone could define that for me. What does fully mean? Like, any conceivable environment?



Sorry the correct term should be weather-sealed. I'm just looking to be able to shoot in most rugged condition: rain, snow, cold, etc.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 21, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Sorry the correct term should be weather-sealed. I'm just looking to be able to shoot in most rugged condition: rain, snow, cold, etc.



Gotcha. I often see that term, and my profession kicks in. I’m responsible for the development of hardware we have to qualify to work in some of the most demanding environments. Wide temperatures cycles, salt fog, condensing humidity, volcanic ash, sand and dust, and ambient temperatures higher than many electronic components are made for.

I expect any of these cameras will satisfy your weather needs.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Gotcha. I often see that term, and my profession kicks in. I’m responsible for the development of hardware we have to qualify to work in some of the most demanding environments. Wide temperatures cycles, salt fog, condensing humidity, volcanic ash, sand and dust, and ambient temperatures higher than many electronic components are made for.
> 
> I expect any of these cameras will satisfy your weather needs.



Yea I suspect most camera will do a great job except for Sony. In some YouTube test, Sony didn't do that well. Sony's archilles will always be ergonomic and weather sealing. I dropped my camera with a heavy lens on concrete and it has some scuff mark but everything works fine. I'm scare if the same scenario happens with a Sony.

That's a cool job. Yeah I'm aware a lot of manufactures do extensive testings to ensure their products are reliable in all kind of conditions. Sadly alot of companies are going away from it to chase profit and planned obsolescence


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 21, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Yea I suspect most camera will do a great job except for Sony. In some YouTube test, Sony didn't do that well.



I include Sony in my listing.

I think I saw that video, if you’re talking about the one where they subjected the cameras to a garden hose for an extended period. The Sony did fine; I would probably quit before it.

The video is not indicative of capability, it merely showed three cameras relative to eachother in one situation, one time. The Canon and Nikon did better than the Sony, but I suspect we are taking about “better than good enough.”



bokehmon22 said:


> That's a cool job. Yeah I'm aware a lot of manufactures do extensive testings to ensure their products are reliable in all kind of conditions. Sadly alot of companies are going away from it to chase profit and planned obsolescence



It pays the bills 

My market is unique. The products often have to be supported for decades, and there is for all intents and purposes only one customer (the US Government by way of defense acquisitions), so planned obsolescence isn’t an option. We often have contractual requirements that no components (from caps, resistors, etc. all the way up to logic devices) used will have an end of life of less than 5-7 years at the time of production. If they even smell obsolescence, we can’t move forward. It makes it difficult, but as a tax payer I appreciate it.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Gotcha. I often see that term, and my profession kicks in. I’m responsible for the development of hardware we have to qualify to work in some of the most demanding environments. Wide temperatures cycles, salt fog, condensing humidity, volcanic ash, sand and dust, and ambient temperatures higher than many electronic components are made for.
> 
> I expect any of these cameras will satisfy your weather needs.


Sounds a very interesting day job!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Sounds a very interesting day job!


In fairness I have only seen the volcanic ash environment leveled one time. Maybe we need to go to war with Costa Rica. I also rarely do immersion, but I have hermetically sealed things for humid environments when electrical performance prevented using other methods.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 21, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> [..] They were sold out in many places is an indication some people don't mind it, but I do.
> [..]



Being sold out or not is a bad measure for popularity, the only thing you can say for sure is that it means the supply chain is failing.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Gotcha. I often see that term, and my profession kicks in. I’m responsible for the development of hardware we have to qualify to work in some of the most demanding environments. Wide temperatures cycles, salt fog, condensing humidity, volcanic ash, sand and dust, and ambient temperatures higher than many electronic components are made for.
> 
> I expect any of these cameras will satisfy your weather needs.



As Roger from lensrentals likes to say: Manufacturers stand behind their weather sealing claims so much that none of their warranties cover water damage


----------



## Kerry Canon (Jan 21, 2019)

I was holding off buying another 5D4 as I need another good camera (I have a 5D4 &7DII)--I was hoping that Canon would release a pro mirrorless in the next few month's ###


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Being sold out or not is a bad measure for popularity, the only thing you can say for sure is that it means the supply chain is failing.



It is but so is Canon FF mirrorless ranking in just Japan.

If you prefer you can go by Google search, Youtube video, sale rank on Amazon, etc. Whatever you want to use as metric. I didn't think people nit pick about certain metric. Sheesh. 

Even as a Canon user, I can understand see the appeal for such a popular camera.


----------



## PhotoMoto (Jan 29, 2019)

edoorn said:


> I am a bit puzzled here; I thought at first it was said it was likely 2019 sees a pro-R body; most likely the one with high m'pix?


YES, i heard the same rumor. When will Canon make a full frame or Medium Format mirrorless that is a 5D or higher level?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 29, 2019)

PhotoMoto said:


> YES, i heard the same rumor. When will Canon make a full frame or Medium Format mirrorless that is a 5D or higher level?



The EOS-R is already full frame and more capable than the EOS 5D


----------



## PhotoMoto (Jan 30, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The EOS-R is already full frame and more capable than the EOS 5D



The EOS-R has ONE card slot, the EOS 5D has TWO. Therefore, the 5D is more capable than the R


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 30, 2019)

PhotoMoto said:


> The EOS-R has ONE card slot, the EOS 5D has TWO. Therefore, the 5D is more capable than the R



Rumors of the 5D’s second card slot have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## PhotoMoto (Jan 30, 2019)

One card slot is a deal breaker. I shoot weddings and I need an instant backup, just in case a card goes bad or a file is corrupted. I don't have the luxury of a second chance, and I can't tell the bride's Mom that my one card jacked up the photos. Two cards is a MUST for me.


----------



## PhotoMoto (Jan 30, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Rumors of the 5D’s second card slot have been greatly exaggerated.


starting with the 5D mark III, all the 5Ds have 2 slots


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 30, 2019)

PhotoMoto said:


> starting with the 5D mark III, all the 5Ds have 2 slots


Yes, I know. I had the 2 and have the 3.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they get there the second generation with the R. That would be ahead of the 5D product line “schedule.”


Still, the EOS-R is full frame and more capable than the EOS 5D.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 3, 2019)

well, in some ways the R is more capable; in others, not.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 4, 2019)

edoorn said:


> well, in some ways the R is more capable; in others, not.



Sure. The EOS 5D has an optical viewfinder and can use EF lenses without an adapter. Those are probably its only “more capable” aspects.

Of course, the member I replied to meant the 5D series as a whole, not just the 5D. That changes the calculus.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 4, 2019)

Well there's actually more, the 5D IV has more customisation options (for instance, multiple AF cases that can be set, the option to assign a button to a very specific AF scenario so it's easy to instantly switch/utilise a different af mode), a multi controller (I've shot several thousands of frames with the R so I do know the body enough to know it should be there) and of course, a second card slot.

And better weather sealing and higher fps rate. Also, the sensor seems to perform slightly better (although probably not very noticeable in real life).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 4, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Well there's actually more, the 5D IV has more customisation options (for instance, multiple AF cases that can be set, the option to assign a button to a very specific AF scenario so it's easy to instantly switch/utilise a different af mode), a multi controller (I've shot several thousands of frames with the R so I do know the body enough to know it should be there) and of course, a second card slot.
> 
> And better weather sealing and higher fps rate. Also, the sensor seems to perform slightly better (although probably not very noticeable in real life).



The 5D IV is covered under the “Of course, the member I replied to meant the 5D series as a whole, not just the 5D. That changes the calculus” part of my post. I was referring to the 5D, because I was bored and felt like being pedantic.

The EOS 5D IV is far more capable than the EOS R. But the post starting this conversation referred to the EOS 5D.

Moving on


----------



## edoorn (Feb 4, 2019)

Aaah yeah I see; my bad


----------



## sfeinsmith (Feb 11, 2019)

Canon abandoned EF-based camera bodies favor for junk R camera bodies. They now avoid developing a new generation for EF lenses. Now, they stripped and abandoned wonderful designed Canon EOS 5DS R with high megapixels sensor. We are no longer support Canon as many professional photographers already stopped because they did not like Canon's behavior in the market. Canon tends to ruin professional photographers by abandoned twice (abandoned F/A series cameras with FD lenses and now, EF based cameras with EF lenses).

Also, Canon abandons EOS 1Dx camera with higher resolution and advanced electronic components for quick data transferring.

Canon abandoned the film-based camera system, and now they are in trouble because the film is back into the market again. Good thing, I still have F-1, A-1 and EOS 1N RS camera bodies so then I can use it again with Tri-X, Porta, and Ektar. The Kodak Kodachrome is coming very soon!!! I noticed eBay for the film based camera system went jumped higher cost included Hasselblad. I spoke with camera service in Baltimore, Maryland. They said their business is skyrocket because of film-based equipment need repair to restore to use again. Then who wants the mirrorless camera!!!

The R lenses were not worth for money!!!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2019)

sfeinsmith said:


> Canon abandoned EF-based camera bodies favor for junk R camera bodies. They now avoid developing a new generation for EF lenses.



Cite your reference that canon will not make EF bodies or develop EF lenses.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 11, 2019)

sfeinsmith said:


> Canon abandoned EF-based camera bodies favor for junk R camera bodies. They now avoid developing a new generation for EF lenses. Now, they stripped and abandoned wonderful designed Canon EOS 5DS R with high megapixels sensor. We are no longer support Canon as many professional photographers already stopped because they did not like Canon's behavior in the market. Canon tends to ruin professional photographers by abandoned twice (abandoned F/A series cameras with FD lenses and now, EF based cameras with EF lenses).
> 
> Also, Canon abandons EOS 1Dx camera with higher resolution and advanced electronic components for quick data transferring.
> 
> ...



Seriously. Is there anyone who doesn't think we are experiencing paid trolls? If this poster hasn't been paid for this comment then you have to wonder what else could motivate it.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Seriously. Is there anyone who doesn't think we are experiencing paid trolls? If this poster hasn't been paid for this comment then you have to wonder what else could motivate it.


I could be a paid troll! How do I apply?


----------



## Maru (Feb 11, 2019)

I hate Sony personally...they discontinued laptops one fine morning and screwed Vaio users....no support for tvs too post warranty.....lot of promises about support but customer care sux.... once you loose trust... you loose it....i dropped my 7d when model was discontinued and I had a flight in 72 hours...Canon fixed it hearing about flight schedule...and delivered before departure...thats what is giving Respect to your customers...


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 11, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I could be a paid troll! How do I apply?


I wish I knew. I could use a few extra bucks.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2019)

Maru said:


> I hate Sony personally...they discontinued laptops one fine morning and screwed Vaio users....no support for tvs too post warranty.....lot of promises about support but customer care sux.... once you loose trust... you loose it....i dropped my 7d when model was discontinued and I had a flight in 72 hours...Canon fixed it hearing about flight schedule...and delivered before departure...thats what is giving Respect to your customers...


Same here! We had about 30 Vaio notebooks at work, and that was the last thing we ever bought from Sony


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> ...I would prefer animal eyeAF...


 And I prefer hurricane eyeAF.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And I prefer hurricane eyeAF.



I said if I was a wild life photographer (I am not), I would prefer eyeAF. 

Don't quote me out of context. I don't care what you use or want. You add nothing constructive to your post. Just use whatever make you happy. It just a tool. I'm not a fanboy of any brand. 

Stop quoting me and respond with useless with info.


----------



## Phynx2019 (Apr 11, 2019)

Maru said:


> I hate Sony personally...they discontinued laptops one fine morning and screwed Vaio users....no support for tvs too post warranty.....lot of promises about support but customer care sux.... once you loose trust... you loose it....i dropped my 7d when model was discontinued and I had a flight in 72 hours...Canon fixed it hearing about flight schedule...and delivered before departure...thats what is giving Respect to your customers...



Amen brother, totally agree with what your saying, Sony still has a long way to go to earn respect. But I still love there TV's.


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> I said if I was a wild life photographer (I am not), I would prefer eyeAF.
> 
> Don't quote me out of context. I don't care what you use or want. You add nothing constructive to your post. Just use whatever make you happy. It just a tool. I'm not a fanboy of any brand.
> 
> Stop quoting me and respond with useless with info.


Some people have no sense of humor.


----------

