# High megapixel EOS R series camera in testing [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 16, 2020)

> Last week, a report came out about Canon’s high-megapixel EOS R system camera, saying that the new camera would come with a 150mp image sensor.  While impressive, I had doubts that such a sensor would appear in the near future in a consumer product.
> I have now been told that the high-megapixel EOS R camera system camera is in the early stages of testing with a very select group of photographers.
> The megapixel count is “significantly lower than 150mp” the source claims, but that it “just about doubles” the 45mp sensor in the upcoming Canon EOS R5.
> The video specifications I was told are not all that impressive, as that is definitely not the target market for such a camera. If you’re into video, the Canon EOS R5 is going to have you covered for the foreseeable future, but that the high-megapixel camera will be squarely aimed at still photographers.
> This camera should be ready to ship in early 2021...



Continue reading...


----------



## gregster (Mar 16, 2020)

Sounds very much like the rumored 83MP sensor, scaled up from 32MP APS-C?


----------



## cayenne (Mar 16, 2020)

I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.

I'm shooting a bit of medium format film now alongside my 5D3 for digital.....and it really is great stuff.

I'll likely get the R5 after it comes out for a bit....read the reviews, see what it does/does not do and maybe even wait for a firmware update.

But for a larger sensor that what will be on the R5, I think I'd save my pennies and go to a larger medium format sensor, like maybe the Fuji offerings.

Or, I"m looking forward to the (hopefully) soon to be released new Hasselblad MF back that will fit in seamlessly with the old V series MF film cameras, but also have a new "camera" body that will integrate with their newer lenses, etc.

Yep, I anticipate it will be $$$$...but I think it would be tons of fun, to use with my 501 CM and older glass.

But I'm not sure how beneficial squeezing like 100MP into a 35mm digital style sensor would do that much good?

If I'm wrong, please someone explain it to me...I'm always happy to learn new things!!


cayenne


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.
> 
> I'm shooting a bit of medium format film now alongside my 5D3 for digital.....and it really is great stuff.
> 
> ...


I've seen some impressive shots from a friend that owns one of those Fuji cameras. While I would love to try MF digital, the cost would be quite prohibitive for me on top of my switch to the RF mount system.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've seen some impressive shots from a friend that owns one of those Fuji cameras. While I would love to try MF digital, the cost would be quite prohibitive for me on top of my switch to the RF mount system.


You could always rent a body and a couple of lenses for a week - that would only set you back between $500 - $1,000 (depending on the exact setup you might rent). Of course that would then just give the "bug" - GAS; Gear Acquisition Syndrome.


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Mar 16, 2020)

This was in line with what I was saying. A high megapixel camera with likely be capable of between 80 to 100 megapixels and be aimed at photographers. Good t se it is still in the works, We have not had an update from CR on this since late last year.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 16, 2020)

Well than it squares up with the previous 83MP rumor!


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2020)

Let's see... patiently waiting for an uber expensive R5 with tons of video specifics which DO drive the price up (funny how that school of thought has shifted) and I will never use, perhaps by buying refurb or wait for a similar time frame for a stills oriented high MP body with new Canon tech at a lesser price point. Give me a few more rumors, this will be an easy decision.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2020)

Let's agree to call it the R3 just for kicks, ok?


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 16, 2020)

I think the R5 will be perfect for high quality images with a large enough sensor. If you need a truly huge file size, than I personally think it is better to think about PhaseOne or Hassemblad. They have 100MB Sony sensor in their arsenal for a while and their reputation is top!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> You could always rent a body and a couple of lenses for a week - that would only set you back between $500 - $1,000 (depending on the exact setup you might rent). Of course that would then just give the "bug" - GAS; Gear Acquisition Syndrome.


True, but that is also money that could go towards a high MP R or new RF lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Let's agree to call it the R3 just for kicks, ok?


Doesn't the "S" in Rs stand for Shimano?


----------



## Cryhavoc (Mar 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Let's see... patiently waiting for an uber expensive R5 with tons of video specifics which DO drive the price up (funny how that school of thought has shifted) and I will never use, perhaps by buying refurb or wait for a similar time frame for a stills oriented high MP body with new Canon tech at a lesser price point. Give me a few more rumors, this will be an easy decision.



I'm still of the thought that the "uber expensive" R5 will weigh in between $3299 to $3699.
Canon wants to eat Sony's lunch and dinner.
Pricing the R5 nearer to $4000 -$4500 range won't allow them to feast.

As soon as they go up for sale at my local shop, I'm trading in the R towards the R5.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Doesn't the "S" in Rs stand for Shimano?


Rally Sport, as in "Hey *Sport*, your GPU is going to really have to *Rally* to keep up with these large files"


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 16, 2020)

Hard call for me ... EOS R5? ... or EOS R high-megapixel? I often print 30 inches, and last year, a distillery requested an 18,000 x 18,000 pixel redwood file for a 10 foot print. I improvised with the 5DS shooting mulitple frames. Half the photos I take are normal portraits and wedding photos.

Wish Canon could let me test out their new high megapixel body.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Mar 16, 2020)

Oooo... I'm actually more enticed with the possibility of a 90mp sensor than a 150mp sensor. The files wouldn't be as unwieldy, yet the crisp images could be outstanding. It better have IBIS though or a tripod will likely be a flat out requirement.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 16, 2020)

If I had to choose between 2 stills oriented bodies and presumably they are the R6 (20ish mp) and this rumored 150mp monster. 

I think I would lean towards the 20mp...for the last decade or so I've been shooting with about 20 and don't really have many complaints, I've printed as large as 24x36" prints with a single file, and they look good on the wall. 

Granted I'll probably get the R5 but as other's have mentioned, I won't be happy paying a premium for video features I'll never use.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 16, 2020)

So Canon is going for proverbial jugular of Sony FF E mount market. Now I really hope Canon licences RF protocols to 3rd party lens makers(Sigma) as it will hurt Sony even more.


----------



## melgross (Mar 16, 2020)

We’ve been hearing about a possible high rez Canon mirrorless for two years now. It’s usually given as 75mp, or a bit higher. So this, at a rumored 90mp, or so, makes far more sense than a 150mp model. It fits within Canon’s 100mp capability for their new lenses.

hopefully, the per pixel IQ will not be limited by too much. While I like the concept of 75-90mp, the camera that’s much more interesting to me is the R5.


----------



## neurorx (Mar 16, 2020)

This is all very exciting and makes me wonder what and when a 1D R series camera will be able to do. It is good and bad to have so many options coming this year and next.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 16, 2020)

It won't be a daily shooter for me in the next year or two but I hope the rental houses picks up a few. Once the prices come down I will take another look if it turns out to be a good product camera.


----------



## Gazwas (Mar 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> But I'm not sure how beneficial squeezing like 100MP into a 35mm digital style sensor would do that much good?
> 
> If I'm wrong, please someone explain it to me...I'm always happy to learn new things!!
> 
> ...


Autofocus performance. 

Face, eye and animal AF on a high megapixel camera would be amazing if you have a need for such applications and something I very highly doubt MFD will ever match.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2020)

I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes. I run an Intel i7 processor from 2014 or 2015 (I think) and 16gb Ram with an Nvidia card that came with this Dell. I'd want something pretty snappy for files that big. Storage gets less expensive all the time, so no worry on that front. I'm sure I could use the computer I already have, but I hate waiting for an action or resize to process, or even for a file to open/close. I'm just an occasional shooter anyway, so all the money I throw into this hobby sometimes seems like massive overkill. If I shot more often with lots of different models (with off camera flash) I might get good enough to justify the expense and at least make the money I need for this hobby. It seems the charity I used to shoot for is withering on the vine, so *dependable models* that show up for TFP shoots are getting hard to come by.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 16, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> ...Now I really hope Canon licences RF protocols to 3rd party lens makers(Sigma)...


I don't believe Canon ever has or ever will license anything to third party lens makers. Sigma, Tamron etc., reverse engineer Canon protocols. Canon cooperates with software makers like Adobe because it is in their best interests and they don't really compete on software. But lenses...nope.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 16, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Autofocus performance.
> 
> Face, eye and animal AF on a high megapixel camera would be amazing if you have a need for such applications and something I very highly doubt MFD will ever match.


Convenience, weight, size, lens compatibility and cost also come to mind.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 16, 2020)

Sounds like overkill for a 35mm to me but I guess I’m not the target audience so it doesn’t matter really matter what I think. More MPs will bring an increase in detail to some degree but the real benefit of larger formats is improved tonality/gradients and more photosites aren’t really going to achieve that to the same degree that a larger image area can/does when you go to medium format. I’m sure the IQ will be excellent so if you don’t need the lightest puffy clouds and butteriest smooth skin tones in your images and you like lots of fine detail this might be the camera you’ve been waiting for.


----------



## LensFungus (Mar 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> This camera should be ready to ship in early 2021...


By then the new world wide currency of this Mad Max like world will be toilet paper. Ten rolls of toilet paper equals 1 buttcoin. So, how many buttcoins will I need for the high megapixel R?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't believe Canon ever has or ever will license anything to third party lens makers. Sigma, Tamron etc., reverse engineer Canon protocols. Canon cooperates with software makers like Adobe because it is in their best interests and they don't really compete on software. But lenses...nope.


I have to imagine some kind of licensing there at least in name, when these third party guys sell glass advertised as "Canon EF Mount". Otherwise I'd assume Canon could just as easily take legal action. Could be wrong. I'm not saying they are licensing out EF/RF specs, but I'm thinking there gotta be something.


----------



## Pape (Mar 16, 2020)

i hope they got it released before sony A7rV ,or canon get postponed again


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I have to imagine some kind of licensing there at least in name, when these third party guys sell glass advertised as "Canon EF Mount". Otherwise I'd assume Canon could just as easily take legal action. Could be wrong. I'm not saying they are licensing out EF/RF specs, but I'm thinking there gotta be something.


Well, there are already 3rd party RF mount lenses, just not with AF that I know of.


----------



## sanj (Mar 16, 2020)

Certainly not for me.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True, but that is also money that could go towards a high MP R or new RF lens.


Yes. Hence the conundrum...


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes. I run an Intel i7 processor from 2014 or 2015 (I think) and 16gb Ram with an Nvidia card that came with this Dell. I'd want something pretty snappy for files that big. Storage gets less expensive all the time, so no worry on that front. I'm sure I could use the computer I already have, but I hate waiting for an action or resize to process, or even for a file to open/close. I'm just an occasional shooter anyway, so all the money I throw into this hobby sometimes seems like massive overkill. If I shot more often with lots of different models (with off camera flash) I might get good enough to justify the expense and at least make the money I need for this hobby. It seems the charity I used to shoot for is withering on the vine, so *dependable models* that show up for TFP shoots are getting hard to come by.


Thanks (?) to your post, I just understood I'll have to shell out about 3000 quid for a new computer, mine having exactly the same characteristics and drawbacks as yours.
Or: tell myself my 5 D III, D IV and R are sufficient for my needs and "skills".
But I'm already drooling on the coming EOS R 5 and S models which I don't need, don't need, don't need etc...


----------



## sulla (Mar 16, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> [...] last year, a distillery requested an 18,000 x 18,000 pixel redwood file for a 10 foot print.


A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 16, 2020)

80 or 90MP and 4K video in 4:2:2, un-cropped would be just about perfect.


----------



## sulla (Mar 16, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> [...] last year, a distillery requested an 18,000 x 18,000 pixel redwood file for a 10 foot print.


And what lenses are capable of resolving that much detail without distorting too much and giving a panorama-stitched impression, after all, a trees should look straight?


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Let's agree to call it the R3 just for kicks, ok?



I was hoping to call it an R2, then maybe when they release the version two we call it a development not a version. So it would D2


----------



## tmroper (Mar 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.
> 
> I'm shooting a bit of medium format film now alongside my 5D3 for digital.....and it really is great stuff.
> 
> ...


Used Hasselblad X1D's (first version) go for under $3K, and with the new 45mm at $1100, you could be up and running for under $4k. For sure, it's not the camera for everyone, but if it hits your sweet spot, that's a good price for a good MF camera and lens.


----------



## sanj (Mar 16, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Autofocus performance.
> 
> Face, eye and animal AF on a high megapixel camera would be amazing if you have a need for such applications and something I very highly doubt MFD will ever match.


I don't get it. How will sensor MP affect auto focus??? What am I missing?


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 16, 2020)

Current 6D is serving me well, but exciting and interesting seeing these mirrorless bodies and lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2020)

sulla said:


> A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?


It would be printed in sections, but in terms of requiring that file size I’m inclined to agree with you.


----------



## Gazwas (Mar 16, 2020)

sanj said:


> I don't get it. How will sensor MP affect auto focus??? What am I missing?


I you read the original post, the question was what was the benefit to squeezing 100MP onto a small sensor. What good is a 100MP MFD camera if it cant focus very well on anything other than stationary portraits and landscapes. 

A 100MP Canon that can do just about anything while producing super sharp images or 100MP MFD that produces superior results in only a very limited number of situations due mostly to its very poor focusing abilities. 

If you don’t want a 100MP Canon then fair enough but some do and I personally see the attraction.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2020)

timmy_650 said:


> I was hoping to call it an R2, then maybe when they release the version two we call it a development not a version. So it would D2


These aren't the naming schemes you were looking for....Sorry.

R2D2's language was so vulgar they bleeped out every word he said.


----------



## Dexter75 (Mar 16, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> I'm still of the thought that the "uber expensive" R5 will weigh in between $3299 to $3699.
> Canon wants to eat Sony's lunch and dinner.
> Pricing the R5 nearer to $4000 -$4500 range won't allow them to feast.
> 
> As soon as they go up for sale at my local shop, I'm trading in the R towards the R5.



Canon priced their RF 1.2 lenses no one else has $900 than their 1.4 competition. Expect to pay another huge premium in the R5 to get specs no one else has. $4,499-$4,999


----------



## fox40phil (Mar 16, 2020)

I don't like that much of MP...you have already problems with 5Ds/r for wildlife etc... because of microshutterings etc. 
You really need shorter exposure times with more pixel to have sharp images.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 16, 2020)

sulla said:


> A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?



It was for a special event or trade show in some place like Aspen. Their spirits are named after unique redwoods, and wanted something from that forest. The tree I shared previous is in the same grove as a tree they named a bourbon or whiskey after. Originally I sent a full res 5DS file and they said it was too small. Their printer wanted 18,000 x 18,000, which is the lion's share of 12 images merged. The old road was the other scene offered as an option, but they went with the redwood titan tree below. At 100% even the small lichens, needles and spider webs in the bark crevices are evident. Both both scenes, I used a 70-200mm at about 150mm with the 5DS, getting back to avoid distortion. My earlier post with people was not the version, but it's same tree, so I shared that just to show some scale of its 23 ft. diameter trunk.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 16, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> It was for a special event or trade show in some place like Aspen. Their spirits are named after unique redwoods, and wanted something from that forest. The tree I shared previous is in the same grove as a tree they named a bourbon or whiskey after. Originally I sent a full res 5DS file and they said it was too small. Their printer wanted 18,000 x 18,000, which is the lion's share of 12 images merged. The old road was the other scene offered as an option, but they went with the redwood titan tree below. At 100% even the small lichens, needles and spider webs in the bark crevices are evident. Both both scenes, I used a 70-200mm at about 150mm with the 5DS, getting back to avoid distortion. My earlier post with people was not the version, but it's same tree, so I shared that just to show some scale of its 23 ft. diameter trunk.
> 
> View attachment 189250
> View attachment 189249


Nice. Actually, I'm frequently surprised at how crappy the image quality is of large prints used as wall art in hotels and other public and semi-public spaces. I've had images used as billboards before, but no one walks up to a billboard and looks at it from five feet away.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.
> 
> I'm shooting a bit of medium format film now alongside my 5D3 for digital.....and it really is great stuff.
> 
> ...


I think the 100MP on a FF sensor would fall short of the MF sensor if only because the pixels will be larger on the MF. The other thing I think about is that on my 5DsR ( which produces very high quality images) I get 8088 pixels on the long side. A Fuji GFX 50 gets 8256.
Of course the aspect ratios differ but the sensor width is 44mm to my 36mm (roughly speaking) thus the lens on my 5DsR would seem to need more resolution and correction to squeeze the needed IQ onto the sensor.
In film days we lauded the performance of Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad and Rollei and Schneiders, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Fuji on large format.
I was astonished when I learned that their resolving power fell far short of the best 35mm camera lenses as we only needed a 2x linear enlargement of 4x5 film to make an 8x10 as opposed to a 8.3x linear enlargement.
The pixel dimensions may be similar but the sensor size would seem to be the limiting factor in ultimate IQ because of those two issues.
As for 100MP I would be more comfortable with and even larger sensor than the GFX100 as nice as that may be.

Maybe someone else can chime in.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 16, 2020)

I'm a stills shooter, and most of the hype for the R5 has been the video magic it can do. So if they are coming out with a stills-oriented camera with 85-90ish MP sensor then it would definitely be what I would want. I'm into making huge panoramas, as well as printing still shots as big as they can sharply go, so I've gotten used to working with super large files on my Mac by offloading finished photos to external storage.

The main downside is that I will have to wait even longer for it than I was expecting when I thought the R5 might be the camera I was going to get.


----------



## reef58 (Mar 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes. I run an Intel i7 processor from 2014 or 2015 (I think) and 16gb Ram with an Nvidia card that came with this Dell. I'd want something pretty snappy for files that big. Storage gets less expensive all the time, so no worry on that front. I'm sure I could use the computer I already have, but I hate waiting for an action or resize to process, or even for a file to open/close. I'm just an occasional shooter anyway, so all the money I throw into this hobby sometimes seems like massive overkill. If I shot more often with lots of different models (with off camera flash) I might get good enough to justify the expense and at least make the money I need for this hobby. It seems the charity I used to shoot for is withering on the vine, so *dependable models* that show up for TFP shoots are getting hard to come by.



The R5 is super cool but this is the model that interests me. It will be used primarily for landscape. It really won't be that taxing on a computer. I may go out all day and take 10 photos with my landscape rig be it a 5d4, rb67 or a 4x5.  I may take 1000 photos in a day with my 1d cameras.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 16, 2020)

Is the second one Howland Hill Rd? Looks familiar.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2020)

reef58 said:


> The R5 is super cool but this is the model that interests me. It will be used primarily for landscape. It really won't be that taxing on a computer. I may go out all day and take 10 photos with my landscape rig be it a 5d4, rb67 or a 4x5. I may take 1000 photos in a day with my 1d cameras.


This is my sentiment exactly. This is the type of rig you could set up with a particular mindset and goal of a shot and dial in all the particulars, patiently going through the changing lights phases. Quality over quantity (except in MP, lol)


Or you can spray and pray and join one of those replace your computer threads


----------



## jvillain (Mar 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes.


Stick an NVME drive in it and reinstall. Use your existing drive for long term archival. You will be shocked at how much faster it will be.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, there are already 3rd party RF mount lenses, just not with AF that I know of.



Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF arrives as the first third-party Canon RF autofocus lens









Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF arrives as the first third-party Canon RF autofocus lens


The lens marks the first third-party autofocus lens for Canon's RF lens mount. Pricing remains a mystery, but the lens is set to be available around the world in November 2019.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## SteveC (Mar 17, 2020)

So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?

The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?
> 
> The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.


Shoot, I went and coined the R3 but wanted it to be cheaper. We all know the higher numbers cost more so let's call it the Rs and lower the price


----------



## joestopper (Mar 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?
> 
> The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.



My guess: About the same. Why: While R5 has higher FPS and better video, the R3/R5S has the higher resolution. Neither has it all and for about the same price the customer decides what their priority is ...


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Nice. Actually, I'm frequently surprised at how crappy the image quality is of large prints used as wall art in hotels and other public and semi-public spaces. I've had images used as billboards before, but no one walks up to a billboard and looks at it from five feet away.


Your are right. Much of the large wall art is lame. Or, the managers or designers don't realize better may be available. I remember walking into a car dealership a couple years ago looking at a tall wall mural of redwoods and most small detail was gone. It was almost abstract.


----------



## Sean C (Mar 17, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> I don't like that much of MP...you have already problems with 5Ds/r for wildlife etc... because of microshutterings etc.
> You really need shorter exposure times with more pixel to have sharp images.


That sounds like a job for in body image stabilization. i.e. perhaps they're creating and solving the problem together. We can hope...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 17, 2020)

I just shutter shudder to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. 

True proof of a photographer I guess. 

Jack


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Your are right. Much of the large wall art is lame. Or, the managers or designers don't realize better may be available. I remember walking into a car dealership a couple years ago looking at a tall wall mural of redwoods and most small detail was gone. It was almost abstract.


I think I've been to that Subaru dealership!


----------



## mpb001 (Mar 17, 2020)

Can we have a nice R6, with a measly 20 MP sensor with great low light performance first? Please?


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> Can we have a nice R6, with a measly 20 MP sensor with great low light performance first? Please?


It's whats been said all along


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't believe Canon ever has or ever will license anything to third party lens makers. Sigma, Tamron etc., reverse engineer Canon protocols. Canon cooperates with software makers like Adobe because it is in their best interests and they don't really compete on software. But lenses...nope.


Canon seems to have opened up EF-M mount, also many Sigma lenses on EF have their profiles built into Canon DSLRs so to a certain degree EF mount has been opened up as well. Making MF lenses is easier as engineers just have reverse engineer mount dimensions while reverse engineering encrypted protocols is much harder task.


----------



## mpb001 (Mar 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's whats been said all along


True, but while we have seen the R5, which isn’t due until “after” the R6, why haven’t we even seen the rumored R6?


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 17, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I just shutter shudder to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera.
> 
> True proof of a photographer I guess.
> 
> Jack



Sometimes I get a small smile or chuckle when opening a file that came from my 5DS in Lightroom. I don't even have to look at the EXIF data to know whether it was from an old 5D mk ii, the EOS R or other. As soon as I open the file and start any changes, I can hear the fans in my computer case start to rev-up.


----------



## davo (Mar 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's whats been said all along


Isnt the R6 supposed to be a plastic frame and no top lcd etc.?


----------



## masterpix (Mar 17, 2020)

The main differnces between a medium format and 35mm sensor are that the medium format sensor has bigger pixels on the sensors for the same sensor "size" just due to the fact that the medium format sensor is bigger in size, so 150MP sensor in medium format has larger pixels than the 35mm sensor. However, as much as I would liek to have a phase-one camera, there is a lack of varity of lenses for medium format and the price... ow.. that is a very painful point, Medium format cameras cost a magnitue or more than any 35mm cameras.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 17, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Hard call for me ... EOS R5? ... or EOS R high-megapixel? I often print 30 inches, and last year, a distillery requested an 18,000 x 18,000 pixel redwood file for a 10 foot print. I improvised with the 5DS shooting mulitple frames. Half the photos I take are normal portraits and wedding photos.
> 
> Wish Canon could let me test out their new high megapixel body.
> 
> View attachment 189240



That is a rather STUNNING PHOTO! 

It really shows the size of the trees! Because you said Redwood, I am assuming that's either Sequoia National Park or Redwood Forest in California, although I HAVE seen a few Douglas Firs almost as big as that one in Northwestern Vancouver Island! Where was that photo taken?

--


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> We’ve been hearing about a possible high rez Canon mirrorless for two years now. It’s usually given as 75mp, or a bit higher. So this, at a rumored 90mp, or so, makes far more sense than a 150mp model. It fits within Canon’s 100mp capability for their new lenses.
> 
> hopefully, the per pixel IQ will not be limited by too much. While I like the concept of 75-90mp, the camera that’s much more interesting to me is the R5.



---

What CANON SHOULD BE DOING for the high-end fashion and product photographers is focusing on 50 to 100 megapixels at say 70mm by 46mm sensor sizes which is actually a TRUE medium format sensor size so that the photosites are either 8.5 microns for 3:2 aspect ratio 50 megapixels (8192 x 5488 pixels) or about 5.8 microns for 100 megapixels (12000 x 8000 pixels) at that large size. Such a Super-MF camera would have OUTSTANDING dynamic range and clarity at 16-bits per colour channel (48-bit colour!)

THAT would actually best most high end MF film cameras!

Even at $20,000 per body, they would sell over 10,000 cameras ($200 million US) and another TWO BILLION DOLLARS U.S. in lenses in about 2 years --- That's DEFINITELY worth some research dollars which can trickle down to a higher pixel count 35mm FF mirrorless global shutter body down the road!

--


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> That is a rather STUNNING PHOTO!
> 
> It really shows the size of the trees! Because you said Redwood, I am assuming that's either Sequoia National Park or Redwood Forest in California, although I HAVE seen a few Douglas Firs almost as big as that one in Northwestern Vancouver Island! Where was that photo taken?
> 
> --


Sequoia/Redwood... two different trees.


----------



## Diko (Mar 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.
> ....
> But for a larger sensor that what will be on the R5, I think I'd save my pennies and go to a larger medium format sensor, like maybe the Fuji offerings.
> ...
> Yep, I anticipate it will be $$$$...but I think it would be tons of fun, to use with my 501 CM and older glass.



It makes all the sense as long as there's the busness justificaiton and the proprietary lenses.

So far 83 MPs on a Sigma 50 mm ART with its 33 perceptual MPs or the manually focused costing $4K Carl-Zeiss Otus with its 45 MPs (if I recall correctly)... I don't see aby reason to go for the new high MP Canon body. Especially having in mind the R requires new lenses.

The logical way is MF. Bigger pixels, bigger body (yes, when pixels are more, better steady hand along the higher speeds), better DR. 

Canon had to choose and they made the logical path towards mirrorless, leaving MF for other times (eventually). Both requiring new series of lenses. Obviously in next 10-20 years no Canon MF. :-( How unfortunate for me.


----------



## mpb001 (Mar 17, 2020)

The R6 is likley to sell well, especially with the IBIS, new sensor and smaller, lighter body for travel. It will complement my 5DIV. The sensor is not much smaller than 24 MP found on similar cameras, so Im fine with that. Plus it will be a new sensor, likley to produce decent higher ISO photos than say the RP or 6DII.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 17, 2020)

L


mpb001 said:


> The R6 is likley to sell well, especially with the IBIS, new sensor and smaller, lighter body for travel. It will complement my 5DIV. The sensor is not much smaller than 24 MP found on similar cameras, so Im fine with that. Plus it will be a new sensor, likley to produce decent higher ISO photos than say the RP or 6DII.


let me guess:
1. A single memory slot,
2. No joystick
3. 1/4000s fastest shutter speed
4. Limited FPS: 8fps-ish
5. A limited weather protection
6. X-Sync speed up to 1/180s

What else?


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 17, 2020)

masterpix said:


> ...and the price... ow.. that is a very painful point, Medium format cameras cost a magnitude or more than any 35mm cameras.


Yeah just for fun I checked out a Rodenstock HR Digaron-S 28 mm f/4.5 just now: $9000! 

And I read somewhere about the editing nightmare required to correct for consistent colors across the frame--because of the steep angles light is bent through. And I may be wrong, but I've heard sharpness is only mediocre. So I don't get it.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> Can we have a nice R6, with a measly 20 MP sensor with great low light performance first? Please?



I think the answer to that has been laid out so far last a likely.......*No*.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2020)

Diko said:


> <snip>
> Especially having in mind the R requires new lenses.
> 
> <snip>



You can readily run any EF glass you currently have (or buy) for as long as you want with the adapter, which I'm to understand works extremely well.

So, there is no requirement for new R lenses with any new R camera out now or appreciably in the future....

HTH,

C


----------



## melgross (Mar 17, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> What CANON SHOULD BE DOING for the high-end fashion and product photographers is focusing on 50 to 100 megapixels at say 70mm by 46mm sensor sizes which is actually a TRUE medium format sensor size so that the photosites are either 8.5 microns for 3:2 aspect ratio 50 megapixels (8192 x 5488 pixels) or about 5.8 microns for 100 megapixels (12000 x 8000 pixels) at that large size. Such a Super-MF camera would have OUTSTANDING dynamic range and clarity at 16-bits per colour channel (48-bit colour!)
> 
> ...


Hah! While I’m retired, I still remember very well how fashion works from my film lab. We would get large, for the day, files of 33mp. For the photogs who didn’t do anything other than the “clicks”. And a lot didn’t want to learn anything about digital other than for the clicks. But as soon as the files were sent to the studio, either advertising, or designer, those files would be reduced to half the rez.

the truth is that for that work, high rez files aren’t necessary, except for a very few uses. Most purposing is for catalog and magazine, with most of the rest used for online.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> Hah! While I’m retired, I still remember very well how fashion works from my film lab. We would get large, for the day, files of 33mp. For the photogs who didn’t do anything other than the “clicks”. And a lot didn’t want to learn anything about digital other than for the clicks. But as soon as the files were sent to the studio, either advertising, or designer, those files would be reduced to half the rez.
> 
> the truth is that for that work, high rez files aren’t necessary, except for a very few uses. Most purposing is for catalog and magazine, with most of the rest used for online.


So true. Print magazine resolution is not high or large. Even fashion billboards are not high resolution.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> let me guess:
> 1. A single memory slot,
> 2. No joystick
> 3. 1/4000s fastest shutter speed
> ...



If that's the case, it sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So true. Print magazine resolution is not high or large. Even fashion billboards are not high resolution.




But isn't it nice to have "room to play with" so to speak? Shoot further out so you can crop in as needed per the art director, etc.....leaving headroom choices if needed, etc?

Higher resolution than you need make it nice to be able to reframe as needed and not worrying about losing too much resolution....

C


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> But isn't it nice to have "room to play with" so to speak? Shoot further out so you can crop in as needed per the art director, etc.....leaving headroom choices if needed, etc?
> 
> Higher resolution than you need make it nice to be able to reframe as needed and not worrying about losing too much resolution....
> 
> C


Never said it wouldn’t be nice. I believe a poster had commented that Canon should be focused on a high resolution camera for fashion photographers. Isn’t Canon already working on a high resolution camera? Yes. 

Then I was agreeing with another poster about his experience at his lab in the past.


----------



## AaronT (Mar 17, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> I don't like that much of MP...you have already problems with 5Ds/r for wildlife etc... because of microshutterings etc.
> You really need shorter exposure times with more pixel to have sharp images.


Do you actually have or actually shot a 5DsR? I have, and do. Sharpest camera I have owned. Yes, you sometimes need a higher shutter speed. Sometimes you have to improve your technique. For landscape you might need a tripod for max sharpness. It's not the cameras fault. This photo was taken at 1/60 sec handheld. I'm 69 years old. The camera is not the problem.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Do you actually have or actually shot a 5DsR? I have, and do. Sharpest camera I have owned. Yes, you sometimes need a higher shutter speed. Sometimes you have to improve your technique. For landscape you might need a tripod for max sharpness. It's not the cameras fault. This photo was taken at 1/60 sec handheld. I'm 69 years old. The camera is not the problem.
> View attachment 189254
> 
> 
> View attachment 189255


Not saying the other guy was doing this: We have people here all the time who are experts with gear they have never tried, much less seen. If some youtuber with crappy technique, but a high following, writes up a bad review it is taken as gospel, internalized as personal experience/knowledge, and spread around like so much peanut butter. The age of the internet, and a google search, has spawned an army of doctors, attorneys, engineers, etc., that have no idea what the f they are talking about and are not mentally equipped to critically think. Sheep. That's what they call them. Baaaaa!  Please excuse my crappy punctuation as I am on my 4th Red's Wicked Apple as I scour the web for toilet paper. I've done the best I can as I itch, squirm, and slur.  Soooooooo glad I saved all those National Geographics. And no.... no matter how many clicks Kim K. gets, her huge butt is not pretty.   

Very nice photo.


----------



## chasingrealness (Mar 17, 2020)

I really look forward to having this camera and an R5 in my bag with some sick f/2 zooms and 1.2 primes. #dreamingfromhome


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> I really look forward to having this camera and an R5 in my bag with some sick f/2 zooms and 1.2 primes. #dreamingfromhome


The U.S.A. is getting ready to give every adult at least $1,000 in fiat currency whether we need it or not. I don't have to tell you where that money is going.  I am placing an ad on Craigslist for sister wives as we speak. I am 110% behind rehabilitating Japan's economy. MJGA!


----------



## joestopper (Mar 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



"just about doubles”

It always comes back to the 83MP. It will have a crop mode and generate 32MP in raw format. You get two bodies in one: The 7D successor in R shape and a high-res R5. The perfect body! (I am willing to shed 6k)


----------



## joestopper (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The U.S.A. is getting ready to give every adult at least $1,000 in fiat currency whether we need it or not. I don't have to tell you where that money is going.  I am placing an ad on Craigslist for sister wives as we speak. I am 110% behind rehabilitating Japan's economy. MJGA!



Are you sure you will get a check? Note: ' ... “I think it’s clear we don’t need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks,” Mnuchin said ...'


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Are you sure you will get a check? Note: ' ... “I think it’s clear we don’t need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks,” Mnuchin said ...'


Positively sure.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Positively sure.



Lucky you ...


----------



## brad-man (Mar 18, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Are you sure you will get a check? Note: ' ... “I think it’s clear we don’t need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks,” Mnuchin said ...'


I hate to rattle your faith in the system, but on very rare and far between occasions, there can sometimes be a disconnect between what a government agency says and what it does...


----------



## joestopper (Mar 18, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I hate to rattle your faith in the system, but on very rare and far between occasions, there can sometimes be a disconnect between what a government agency says and what it does...



Sure. But elections ahead it is likely ...


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I hate to rattle your faith in the system, but on very rare and far between occasions, there can sometimes be a disconnect between what a government agency says and what it does...


It is an election year and I have zero faith in the system.. While I happen to be a very fiscally conservative guy, these vote buying idiots in Washington D.C. will never let a crisis go to waste. People here (The U.S.A.) seem not to grasp the idea that the two main parties are two sides of the same exact coin. I , personally, would like to see some sanity and fiscal restraint, but it ain't gonna happen. Both parties spend far beyond what is taken in. As a result, I'll give the $ to Japan. Democrat or Republican? In practice they are they same damn thing. I'll vote with my $ for the RF party.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 18, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> That is a rather STUNNING PHOTO!
> 
> It really shows the size of the trees! Because you said Redwood, I am assuming that's either Sequoia National Park or Redwood Forest in California, although I HAVE seen a few Douglas Firs almost as big as that one in Northwestern Vancouver Island! Where was that photo taken?
> 
> --



Redwood National Park. The redwood was 23 feet average diameter, so likely twice the width of BC's biggest Douglas fir.

This redwood below will also see an EOS R5 if I get one, for another of several repeats in different weather during different seasons.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Hah! While I’m retired, I still remember very well how fashion works from my film lab. We would get large, for the day, files of 33mp. For the photogs who didn’t do anything other than the “clicks”. And a lot didn’t want to learn anything about digital other than for the clicks. But as soon as the files were sent to the studio, either advertising, or designer, those files would be reduced to half the rez.
> 
> the truth is that for that work, high rez files aren’t necessary, except for a very few uses. Most purposing is for catalog and magazine, with most of the rest used for online.




---

In our case for product PDF files, I print at 2400 dpi (Dots Per Inch) or about 600 ppi pixels per inch CMYK using a 4x4 dots structure, so I want the highest resolution possible. Even a 100, 200 or 400 megapixels is NOT enough to do 72 by 48 inch 2400 dpi prints even with error diffusion turn on.

100 megapixels would be IDEAL for 8x10 at 1200 dpi (or 600 ppi using 2x2 structure for CMYK dots) and Canon would make a fortune by replacing all the Phase Ones and Hasselblads out there if they kept their body to a larger version of the 1Dx Mk3 body style with its EXCELLENT ruggedness AND priced to less than $20,000 !!!

There are just too many fashion/product photogs I know who would SWITCH in an instant for a Canon 100 megapixel monster with 70mm sized sensor and 16-bits per RGB colour channel ! With an f/1.2 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lens Canon would OWN the Fashion and Product Catalog Photography industry in mere days of the introduction of such a larger version of a 1Dxmk3 body-style ruggedized Super-MF+ camera!

--

--


----------



## Trout Bum (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Please excuse my crappy punctuation as I am on my 4th Red's Wicked Apple as I scour the web for toilet paper. I've done the best I can as I itch, squirm, and slur.  Soooooooo glad I saved all those National Geographics. And no.... no matter how many clicks Kim K. gets, her huge butt is not pretty


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The U.S.A. is getting ready to give every adult at least $1,000 in fiat currency whether we need it or not. I don't have to tell you where that money is going.  I am placing an ad on Craigslist for sister wives as we speak. I am 110% behind rehabilitating Japan's economy. MJGA!


 Buy some toilet paper rolls instead.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 18, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Redwood National Park. The redwood was 23 feet average diameter, so likely twice the width of BC's biggest Douglas fir.
> 
> This redwood below will also see an EOS R5 if I get one, for another of several repeats in different weather during different seasons.
> 
> View attachment 189259




YUP !!! You're right! Just looked it up that the Red Creek Fir in British Columbia is only 14 feet in diameter or 63% of the size of the 22 feet diameter Sequoia/Redwood you photographed above! That BC Fir is plenty big too but your Redwood is TRULY A MONSTER SIZE TREE!!!

For some reason it always seemed so much bigger than a mere 14 feet in diameter! --- Oh well. My bad!

--

I am STILL impressed by your photo !!! What a Monster Tree !!! I always end driving right on past the area so I never get to visit...gotta make a detour some day to see it in person !!!

.


----------



## Trout Bum (Mar 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Buy some toilet paper rolls instead.


Have you tried to buy some today??!!


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 18, 2020)

sulla said:


> A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?




Actually, 324 megapixels and 18k by 18k pixel isn't actually all that large! If I remember correctly one of the manufacturer signs draped over the ENTIRE FACE of a Las Vegas hotel (i.e. I think it was Microsoft who made the sign for their products but I am not sure anymore) during a long-ago Comdex show (2003?) that was a 32,000 by 32,000 pixels file (i.e. the limit of the Windows RGB BMP file format at one gigapixel) and had to be printed in sections at an error-diffusioned 400 dpi (or about 200 ppi CMYK)

These days for aerospace imagery, our LARGEST SINGLE PHOTO is 131,072 by 131,072 pixels (17.17 Gigapixels) at 32-bits per channel (128-bits RGBA) taken by a 400mm by 400mm CMOS single-silicon-slice etched sensor so that is quite large for such a lower-than-low-Earth-orbit platform, although I have heard in "Certain Black Budget Circles" there are LARGER SENSORS (2x2 metres!) up in space right now which have MUCH LARGER photosites (i.e. 122 microns) and lower resolution (16k by 16k pixels) for deep space work! I would expect that at 122 microns per photosite, the clarity and light-gathering power would be WAAAAAAAAAAAY BEYOND anything seen in the "White Budget World" !!!

--


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 18, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> YUP !!! You're right! Just looked it up that the Red Creek Fir in British Columbia is only 14 feet in diameter or 63% of the size of the 22 feet diameter Sequoia/Redwood you photographed above! That BC Fir is plenty big too but your Redwood is TRULY A MONSTER SIZE TREE!!!
> 
> For some reason it always seemed so much bigger than a mere 14 feet in diameter! --- Oh well. My bad!
> 
> ...



That's somewhat normal just how it can seem sometimes around the biggest. When we found some new discoveries the past few years, it took several weeks to figure out where on the totem pole or "food chain" the trees ranked. Once trees surpass a certain size, it can become challenging to perceive what's really there.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

Trout Bum said:


> Have you tried to buy some today??!!


As the restaurants have closed in our area, and people are now eating at home, the grocery stores are now running out of many items including eggs, milk, meats, etc. This is going to be a much more impactful event than the real estate crash in 2008.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As the restaurants have closed in our area, and people are now eating at home, the grocery stores are now running out of many items including eggs, milk, meats, etc. This is going to be a much more impactful event than the real estate crash in 2008.



That may be short term. If restaurants don't sell as many eggs, the distributors who can't sell to wholesale warehouses can simply divert the flow of eggs and bacon to the grocery store's increased demand. Just takes a few phone calls and contract changes.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> That may be short term. If restaurants don't sell as many eggs, the distributors who can't sell to wholesale warehouses can simply divert the flow of eggs and bacon to the grocery store's increased demand. Just takes a few phone calls and contract changes.


True, except that in many cases it will also require packaging changes for retail sales regulations to be met. That happens at the factory. Many of the wholesale warehouses for restaurant supply are going to have to either discard or donate. In the meantime, people who don’t understand how all this works see empty shelves and start panic buying, making things worse for a while.

Companies that supply exclusively to the restaurant industry are going to be in a world of hurt.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Are you sure you will get a check? Note: ' ... “I think it’s clear we don’t need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks,” Mnuchin said ...'



I don't make a million dollars a year...so, yep, I should be eligible ......



And yes, my $1K is going towards gear for me too.....

C


----------



## melgross (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So true. Print magazine resolution is not high or large. Even fashion billboards are not high resolution.


Sure. We would print billboards. The halftone dots were the size of a hardball. rhe rez was somewhere around 7 inches per line.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True, except that in many cases it will also require packaging changes for retail sales regulations to be met. That happens at the factory. Many of the wholesale warehouses for restaurant supply are going to have to either discard or donate. In the meantime, people who don’t understand how all this works see empty shelves and start panic buying, making things worse for a while.
> 
> Companies that supply exclusively to the restaurant industry are going to be in a world of hurt.



Like those little ketchup packets, black bars to scour grill tops or "Boyds" coffee. My dad used to have 3 restaurants about 40 years ago when I was much younger. I used to pick up supplies at the cash and carry for him.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I don't make a million dollars a year...so, yep, I should be eligible ......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They've just upped it to $2k per person making under $65k.


----------



## melgross (Mar 18, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> In our case for product PDF files, I print at 2400 dpi (Dots Per Inch) or about 600 ppi pixels per inch CMYK using a 4x4 dots structure, so I want the highest resolution possible. Even a 100, 200 or 400 megapixels is NOT enough to do 72 by 48 inch 2400 dpi prints even with error diffusion turn on.
> 
> ...


You’re not talking about the vast majority of work out there, which is, at most, a double page spread at 150lpi, that reauires 266 dpi in the image file. That’s even an extreme for most work. We did a picture of Bombay Sapphire that went on the side of a skyscraper (Special printing, and numerous prints). That was over a dozen stories high. The original image was just 8mp.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> In our case for product PDF files, I print at 2400 dpi (Dots Per Inch) or about 600 ppi pixels per inch CMYK using a 4x4 dots structure, so I want the highest resolution possible. Even a 100, 200 or 400 megapixels is NOT enough to do 72 by 48 inch 2400 dpi prints even with error diffusion turn on.
> 
> ...


Y’all should just buy a real nice 3D scanner and 3D printer and call it a day.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ... SNIP ...
> 
> Companies that supply exclusively to the restaurant industry are going to be in a world of hurt.



You gave me an idea. remember that cash and carry restaurant supply warehouses will sell to many other businesses, provided they have a business or business checking. When we lived up in Portland, we would buy spices and I just wrote from my arborist landscape company checkbook.

Photographers who find a certain shortage, and own a business, may care to see if the commercial supplier has the product they need.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Canon seems to have opened up EF-M mount, also many Sigma lenses on EF have their profiles built into Canon DSLRs so to a certain degree EF mount has been opened up as well. Making MF lenses is easier as engineers just have reverse engineer mount dimensions while reverse engineering encrypted protocols is much harder task.



Please tell me which specific Canon EOS camera have profiles of which specific Sigma lenses?


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Please tell me which specific Canon EOS camera have profiles of which specific Sigma lenses?





Michael Clark said:


> Please tell me which specific Canon EOS camera have profiles of which specific Sigma lenses?











Sigma adds Canon Lens Aberration Correction and Nikon bug fixes with new firmware updates


Sigma has released a range of firmware updates for some of their Art, Sports and Contemporary lenses for both Canon and Nikon to add feature support and fix a few bugs. There’s also an update for the Sigma MC-11 adapters expand lens compatibility. For Canon The Canon updates mostly ensure...




www.diyphotography.net


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Sigma adds Canon Lens Aberration Correction and Nikon bug fixes with new firmware updates
> 
> 
> Sigma has released a range of firmware updates for some of their Art, Sports and Contemporary lenses for both Canon and Nikon to add feature support and fix a few bugs. There’s also an update for the Sigma MC-11 adapters expand lens compatibility. For Canon The Canon updates mostly ensure...
> ...



FWIW, that's about the *lenses* having the profiles, not the cameras. The camera will read the profile from the lens to use it, Canon didn't release a new firmware for the cameras which contains those profiles.
The net result is basically the same, but the profile not 'built into the DSLR', it's in the lenses.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Mar 19, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Hard call for me ... EOS R5? ... or EOS R high-megapixel? I often print 30 inches, and last year, a distillery requested an 18,000 x 18,000 pixel redwood file for a 10 foot print. I improvised with the 5DS shooting mulitple frames. Half the photos I take are normal portraits and wedding photos.
> 
> Wish Canon could let me test out their new high megapixel body.
> 
> View attachment 189240


Where are the Ewoks?


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> FWIW, that's about the *lenses* having the profiles, not the cameras. The camera will read the profile from the lens to use it, Canon didn't release a new firmware for the cameras which contains those profiles.
> The net result is basically the same, but the profile not 'built into the DSLR', it's in the lenses.


Global vision lenses do show up as their own Sigma models in profiles( and not as some spoofed Canon lens on Dslrs listed in that article.
Here is a screenshot from Dustin's review of Sigma lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Global vision lenses do show up as their own Sigma models in profiles( and not as some spoofed Canon lens on Dslrs listed in that article.
> Here is a screenshot from Dustin's review of Sigma lens.



I know, and the EF-M 56mm Sigma lens I have does the same, but how does that negate what I've been saying? To phrase my point in a different way: The proper name of that 56mm lens also gets shown on my original M, which most recent firmware update was *years* before Sigma launched that lens in any form. So it's the lens providing the name and profiles, not the camera.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 19, 2020)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> Where are the Ewoks?



Inside this one ...


----------



## tonyespofoto (Mar 19, 2020)

I have a 5Ds and I like the camera. My previous cameras were the 1Ds, 1Ds II and 1Ds III. My next camera is likely to be the Rs (or whatever it will be called). The 5Ds does one thing exceedingly well - it makes large, very detailed images. It is a relatively small, light camera that interfaces with a very large system of lenses, flashes and accessories. It will not win prizes for its performance in other areas like high ISO. But it does those tasks adequately, perhaps even much better than adequately, especially when compared to previous generations of cameras. You buy the camera that excels at the main task you need it for. Everything else is gravy. Just like in the film days, MF excels at resolution. The cameras are larger and heavier, the autofocus slower, the accessories more limited and the lenses slower and less abundant. The larger the format, the more these limitations apply. An 11x14 camera requires a packhorse to carry it , the lenses are very slow and quite limited. However, the camera's resolution is unexcelled. It is not a very good sports camera. There is not now, nor will there likely ever be, a camera that does everything exceedingly well at any price. We do not live in a perfect world, however, the cameras and lenses available now, in any digital format, deliver images that were not even imaginable 30 years ago. Count your incredibly abundant blessings.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 19, 2020)

Diko said:


> It makes all the sense as long as there's the busness justificaiton and the proprietary lenses.
> 
> So far 83 MPs on a Sigma 50 mm ART with its 33 perceptual MPs or the manually focused costing $4K Carl-Zeiss Otus with its 45 MPs (if I recall correctly)... I don't see aby reason to go for the new high MP Canon body. Especially having in mind the R requires new lenses.
> 
> ...


Canon has never had MF and with the market in such flux, is unlikely to ever go there.
While I see the allure of MF, the fact is that even large prints from my 5DsR (8 feet wide) look spectacular even up close. The increment of IQ that would be available is debatable but the demand on technique, optics and wallets is undeniable.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 20, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> the demand on technique, optics and wallets is undeniable.



Optics and wallet yes. But no more demanding shooting 100 MPIX than 10 MPIX. Camera shake is the same regardless of MPIX sizes. If anything you will often have less of it - never more.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 20, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Optics and wallet yes. But no more demanding shooting 100 MPIX than 10 MPIX. Camera shake is the same regardless of MPIX sizes. If anything you will often have less of it - never more.


A 10MP file with decent technique will still fall apart at large magnification. A high res file will show the lack of sharpness masked by the inability of the lower res file to render.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 20, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> A 10MP file with decent technique will still fall apart at large magnification. A high res file will show the lack of sharpness masked by the inability of the lower res file to render.


Not sure what you are trying to say. Camera shake will show up in the exact same amount on the same print from a 10 MPIX and 100 MPIX camera. No visual difference at all. Except that high MPIX cameras mostly have better shutters - and thus may show a little less blur than "standard" resolution cameras.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 21, 2020)

except 100Mp mirrorless won't suffer from a camera shake as much as 100Mp DSLR would. A mirror shock was a big issue with high MP DSLR. Lack of flapping mirror in mirrorless augmented by a 2-stop IBIS will certainly take care of camera shake in many situations.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 21, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Global vision lenses do show up as their own Sigma models in profiles( and not as some spoofed Canon lens on Dslrs listed in that article.
> Here is a screenshot from Dustin's review of Sigma lens.



So how do I load the lens profile into my 5D Mark IV? It's not an option when I load lens profiles via EOS Utility, which is the only way to load lens profiles of many Canon lenses.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> except 100Mp mirrorless won't suffer from a camera shake as much as 100Mp DSLR would. A mirror shock was a big issue with high MP DSLR. Lack of flapping mirror in mirrorless augmented by a 2-stop IBIS will certainly take care of camera shake in many situations.


Agree that its even less of a concern with mirrorless - but you get the same advantage also with a low MPIX mirrorless.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 21, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Not sure what you are trying to say. Camera shake will show up in the exact same amount on the same print from a 10 MPIX and 100 MPIX camera. No visual difference at all. Except that high MPIX cameras mostly have better shutters - and thus may show a little less blur than "standard" resolution cameras.


Camera shake will show up at the same rate. However 10MP will be unable to resolve it like 100MP. Thus the 100MP will be annoying upon examining small detail while the 10MP will have the familiar softness of a lower res image and obscure slight motion.

"Better shutters"?
Nope. On LS shutters the vibration is far less than FP shutters. DSLRs suffer from mirror slap and shutter shock. Mirrorless cameras using EFCS minimize shock. But in the end, all things being equal, high MP sensors are less forgiving than low MP ones.
I have seen this in my own cameras (up to 50MP) and this is also confirmed by many others in the field.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 21, 2020)

Trout Bum said:


> Have you tried to buy some today??!!


I've not seen toilet paper in a store in 3 or more weeks. Irony: I used to work for SCA Tissue in Cherokee, Alabama back in 2004-2006. We used to get to take home TP for free all the time. That would be a dream job today.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> C. But in the end, all things being equal, high MP sensors are less forgiving than low MP ones.
> I have seen this in my own cameras (up to 50MP) and this is also confirmed by many others in the field.



1) No. You have not seen that. 2) No. It is not confirmed by anyone - because its not true.

But yes, it is a widespread internet myth about large MPIX cameras.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Better shutters"?
> Nope.


I was only comparing between DSLR’s. 5DS/R has less mirror slap than almost all other Canon cameras (probably less than any other, but not sure about the pro models).


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 21, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've not seen toilet paper in a store in 3 or more weeks. Irony: I used to work for SCA Tissue in Cherokee, Alabama back in 2004-2006. We used to get to take home TP for free all the time. That would be a dream job today.



Did you know a guy named Roger Brannon that worked there?


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 21, 2020)

Trout Bum said:


> Have you tried to buy some today??!!


Yes, bought a pack of toilet paper this very morning at the local Woolworths. was 8:00am sharp on the door I think supply lasted till 8:20am. I am good for next 2-3 weeks. Thanks for asking!


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 22, 2020)

First complaint was, it won't be great for video. How about making a camera devoted to *still photography*? What a novel concept.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 22, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> First complaint was, it won't be great for video. How about making a camera devoted to *still photography*? What a novel concept.



Don't worry, even if they take your advice, you'll still have something to gripe about.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 22, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Don't worry, even if they take your advice, you'll still have something to gripe about.


No.... I just want a camera for photography not videography. The first word out of the guy's mouth was about video. They already screwed up the MKIII vith their video frame rate needs. About time they made one for STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS. I won't complain if they do that. Just don't give me 20MP still camera in 2020.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> No.... I just want a camera for photography not videography.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 22, 2020)

Yes, that is a "camera"


----------



## deleteme (Mar 23, 2020)

Fischer said:


> 1) No. You have not seen that. 2) No. It is not confirmed by anyone - because its not true.
> 
> But yes, it is a widespread internet myth about large MPIX cameras.


Proof?


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 23, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Y’all should just buy a real nice 3D scanner and 3D printer and call it a day.



Why would I do that? I have access to over 100 electron-beam 3D metal deposition printers and 3D polymer printers and multiple 3D-XYZ laser scanners in the main Vancouver or Burnaby warehouses!


ALL of them we designed and built ourselves to ensure we are ITAR-free (i.e. NO US sourced components or systems). I got access to better gear and software than LMCO or DARPA does! We build SPACEPLANES and SUPERCOMPUTERS --- Of course we have some of the best 3D printing/scanning systems on Earth!

.

The question is ..... WHAT CAN'T WE BUILD and design here?

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 23, 2020)

melgross said:


> You’re not talking about the vast majority of work out there, which is, at most, a double page spread at 150lpi, that reauires 266 dpi in the image file. That’s even an extreme for most work. We did a picture of Bombay Sapphire that went on the side of a skyscraper (Special printing, and numerous prints). That was over a dozen stories high. The original image was just 8mp.




I am assuming you're talking about the GIN (i.e. a nice tasty drink that goes VERY well with tonic and some slices of lime or kiwi!) ... The Microsoft sign I was talking about earlier from 2003 was 400 dpi or about 200 ppi but from the distance it looked GREAT! I vaguely remember it was an ad for Windows Server 2003. In this case it was a BMP file (cuz MS invented the BMP format!) so they made it 32,000 by 32000 pixels to showcase the strength of Microsoft software in publishing and multimedia!

I should note it was an RGB file and NOT a CMYK because BMP does NOT support CMYK. THey probably turned SPOT colours into RGB colour and let the printers reconvert back to CMYK. Anyways, the gist of my earlier comments is that PPI and DPI at high enough numbers WILL LOOK MUCH BETTER than low dpi/ppi.

And since MANY fashion/product photographers work TEND to end up on 72 by 48 inch poster boards or in 2400 dpi glossy magazines or books, they NOW NEED 50 megapixel to 100+ megapixel cameras. AND for Canon, that's a 2 to 3 billion dollar worldwide market right there in the first 2 to 3 years of introduction!

They ALREADY have very large sensors in the 250 megapixel range and their LARGEST sensor is a 440 megapixel monster used for satellite and astronomical imaging systems. Doing a 70 mm 100+ megapixel Super-Medium Format is CHILD's play for Canon's engineers! They just have to SCALE UP the body of the 1Dx Mk3 by 1.5x on all dimensions and put in Global Shutter at 20 fps and they will HAVE A MEGAPIXEL MONSTER winner of a camera! I'm pretty sure they would 10,000+ of the $20,000 US bodies in less than two years and another 2 billion+ in lenses by the 3rd year! After that they could trickle down the technology to an FF 150-to-200 megapixel monster 5D-like RF-mount at $5500 and it will make a fortune for them! All the wedding and studio portrait photographers would snap it up within minutes of pre-orders coming online!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 23, 2020)

Fischer said:


> 1) No. You have not seen that. 2) No. It is not confirmed by anyone - because its not true.
> 
> But yes, it is a widespread internet myth about large MPIX cameras.




Actually WE have confirmed that high megapixel cameras ARE problematic when it comes to shake. The issue has more to do with photosite size since a higher megapixel count is being put into the same small Full Frame sensor (i.e. Canon 5Dsr). You simply need to use a higher shutter speed to counteract the less light input to saturate each pixel, motion blur due to sensor readout time increase and the higher inherent noise of Canon's high megapixel count sensors.

The direct comparison of a Fuji GFX-100 vs Canon 5Dsr is striking because of the larger sensor size and the larger individual photosites. The GFX-100 is an OUTSTANDING CAMERA that makes much better images than ANY current Canon camera! ....BUT.... I still like the 5Dsr more than the Fuji because of it's more comfortable grip and intuitive ergonomic feel in my hand. I would LOOOOVE to have a larger Canon 1Dx body with a Fuji GFX-100 sensor in it.

And right now, only one company will be coming out with such a beast and it ain't Canon OR Sony OR Fuji!

..


----------



## Fischer (Mar 23, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Proof?


You need to prove something exits - not that something does not exist. Regardless, any major site - including Canonrumours - today acknowledes the fact after some initial confusion by uninformed reviewers. Just look it up.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 23, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> Actually WE have confirmed that high megapixel cameras ARE problematic when it comes to shake. The issue has more to do with photosite size since a higher megapixel count is being put into the same small Full Frame sensor (i.e. Canon 5Dsr).


I welcome your proof of this claim. Otherwise I have to read "WE" as "I" and disregard the comment as it runs counter to the optical laws that normally determine the amount of camera shake in a resulting picture.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 23, 2020)

The next ten pages are dedicated to camera shake. Does it exist or not? You may begin the pointless back and forth arguments now.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 24, 2020)

Fischer said:


> I welcome your proof of this claim. Otherwise I have to read "WE" as "I" and disregard the comment as it runs counter to the optical laws that normally determine the amount of camera shake in a resulting picture.




--

I should clarify WE as a corporate entity that has a LOT of cameras! (i.e. more than 300 still and video cameras!)

The issues specifically we have for the 5Dsr series is endemic to this type of high megapixel FF camera due to the small photosite size and typical shutterspeed issues at high ISO at or above ISO 3200 ... it's a colour fringing on object edges especially on Red and Blue items. It really has more to do with the DSP on the DIGIC processors and low readout speed than physical camera shake.

The 5Dsr simply does not have enough CPU horsepower to do advanced colour rendering and smoothing like the 1Dx3 can do!
You WILL get very slightly soft edges on things like blue or red shirts or fine checkerboard patterns. I just do an UnSharp Mask to mitigate the problem after I do my colour correcting during post production.

I really do think the OP is using TOO LOW of a shutter speed (i.e. less than 1/200th) on high action subjects which will give you DIRECTIONAL MOTION BLUR rather than overall image "softness". Just up your shutter speed to 1/500th and ISO 1600 to get what you need without too much noise. Brighten your overall image in post production by 5-10% to your taste and then boost your shadows by 10 to 20% to recover dark areas of the photo. Any slight softness can be mitigated by an UnSharp Mask.

--


----------



## st jack photography (Apr 14, 2021)

I worked with the 50mp 5dsr, and a 45mp Sony. I liked them for commercial product photos, but anything moving or anything with shadows? Bad. Want an action burst? Sorry. Need good shadow detail recovery? Forget it. The pixel density on a 50mp sensor requires major buffer speed, comes with bad ISO performance, and a host of other problems. After using the 5DSr, today I would do this: if they had a r5 and a r5R with twice the MP, I would buy the r5. If I could afford two cameras, one for studio, one for hobby, then yes, sure I would buy the high MP camera, but I cannot afford two prosumer bodies.
One thing I noticed about the 5DSr: the pixel density on the 5DSr made shutter speeds of 1/250, for example, look like 1/60. It was much harder to get good shots.
I don't think people understand how many problems pop up when you add MP, given the current technology. The problems may be less with a stacked sensor. I haven't studied them much yet.
There is something to be said for the Fuji Medium Format-lite. I wish Canon would do something similar.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 14, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> One thing I noticed about the 5DSr: the pixel density on the 5DSr made shutter speeds of 1/250, for example, look like 1/60. It was much harder to get good shots.



Let's see:

The 5Ds R has a pixel pitch of 4.14µm for a total area of 17.14µm².
The 1D X Mark II has a pixel pitch of 6.58µm for a total area of 43.3µm².

If you pixel peep both at 100% on a monitor with a pixel pitch of 96ppi you're enlarging the 5Ds R image to the equivalent of 90x60 inches!

If you pixel peep both at 100% on a monitor with a pixel pitch of 96ppi you're enlarging the 1D X Mark II image to the equivalent of 57x38 inches.

Of course you will be able to see, for the same amount of camera motion with the same focal length and Tv, more blur with the 58% larger enlargement!

In terms of total area, you're enlarging the 50MP image by a factor of 2.53X compared to the 20MP image. Of course you will see the same amount of angular blur more easily.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> In terms of total area, you're enlarging the 50MP image by a factor of 2.53X compared to the 20MP image. Of course you will see the same amount of angular blur more easily.


I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 14, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.



Only if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications. And if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications, it's just as true for lower resolution sensors.

If you view both a 20MP shot and a 50MP shot using the same focal length, Tv, and same amount of camera movement at the same 8x10 display size, the size of the blur will be identical for both cameras.

If you view both a 20MP shot and a 50MP shot using the same focal length, Tv, and same amount of camera movement at the same 24x30 display size, the size of the blur will be identical for both cameras.

Only when you view the 20MP shot at 8X10 and the 50MP shot at 24x30 will you see more blur with the 50MP shot. And that's what you are doing when you view both at 100% on your computer. You're enlarging the smaller pixels of the 50MP sensor by a greater factor to make them the same size as a screen pixel as you are magnifying the larger pixels of the 20MP sensor to make them the same size as a screen pixel.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 14, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.



The 1/focal length "rule of thumb" has only ever been valid if you were printing no larger than 8x10. If you planned to print at 16x20, you knew to shoot at 1/2*FL.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 1/focal length "rule of thumb" has only ever been valid if you were printing no larger than 8x10. If you planned to print at 16x20, you knew to shoot at 1/2*FL.


It's not so much the print size as the print viewing distance.

The 'standard' for the longest time was 8" x 10" viewed at 12" or so, but that was because 8" x 10" was very much a 'standard' size because most of them were contact prints. More recently the idea of 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal is considered 'reasonable'. So any image printed to 8X10 and viewed at 18" could be printed to 20" x 30" and viewed at 5' and look exactly the same because it covers the same field of view.

Trouble is you can't keep people 5' from a 20" x 30" print!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Only if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications. And if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications, it's just as true for lower resolution sensors.


I thought that's what I said  When I wrote about scanning at 50mp I thought I'd made it clear that this was to achieve a large output size. In terms of resolution / recorded detail there is no difference between scanning fine 35mm at film at 50 or 20mp. Only the output size is different.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I thought that's what I said  When I wrote about scanning at 50mp I thought I'd made it clear that this was to achieve a large output size. In terms of resolution / recorded detail there is no difference between scanning fine 35mm at film at 50 or 20mp. Only the output size is different.


I remember a few years ago being pretty addicted to some of the content at theonlinephotographer where they were illustrating the differences in scan resolutions and film grain.

There becomes a point at which you are just resolving the actual grain structure of the chemicals in the film, which does have some merit in and of itself for some archival purposes, but for the vast majority of people who are just aiming to get the ‘best detail they can from the original film’ is complete and unnecessary overkill. Even the best resolving commonly used slide films actually correlated to surprisingly modest MP counts. The theoretical/spec sheet listings for resolution were also a bit of a joke as no real world use images came close to achieving those theoretical figures.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 15, 2021)

HarryFilm said:


> --
> 
> I should clarify WE as a corporate entity that has a LOT of cameras! (i.e. more than 300 still and video cameras!)
> 
> ...


The numbers of cameras you have do not prove anything. Dpreview tested cameras for a living for a decade and still made flat out false claims about camera blur in high MPIX bodies. Which they at least have since admitted. Many seasoned reviewers made the same mistake.

You just repeat the same spurious claim - which btw does not make any sense.

That the 5DS/R may not have as good as the sensor as another camera does not increase the amount of camera shake induced blur one single iota. It is _entirely irrelevant _to the angle of movement added to the light passing to the sensor. Maybe the sensor is worse - it will be so regardless of whatever shot you take (if its the case).

Sorry, you do not get to make a claim that runs counter to the - easily demonstrated - optical properties of camera shake induced blur and believe it will convince anyone, anywhere unless you have some hard facts to point to instead of technical gibberish that does not even match your claim.


----------



## slclick (Apr 15, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The numbers of cameras you have do not prove anything. Dpreview tested cameras for a living for a decade and still made flat out false claims about camera blur in high MPIX bodies. Which they at least have since admitted. Many seasoned reviewers made the same mistake.
> 
> You just repeat the same spurious claim - which btw does not make any sense.
> 
> ...


It's not worth it...just read, chomp the popcorn and chuckle.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 15, 2021)

slclick said:


> It's not worth it...just read, chomp the popcorn and chuckle.


Sage advice...


----------



## SteveC (Apr 15, 2021)

slclick said:


> It's not worth it...just read, chomp the popcorn and chuckle.


Or just put him on ignore.


----------

