# Canon EOS R body with more than 75mp on the horizon [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2018)

> We’ve speculated recently that Canon will not be releasing next iterations for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R, and instead will move the high megapixel cameras to the EOS R line.
> A few more people have told us that this will indeed be the case and that an EOS R camera with slightly more than 75mp is in development. This camera could appear sometime in the 2nd half of 2019 we’re told. Though an exact announcement date is a long way from being decided.
> One source added that the high megapixel EOS R will come once 4 or 5 more native RF mount lenses are announced, with one of the new lenses being “the best landscape lens in the Canon lineup”.
> There are no more imaging announcements in 2018, but early 2019 should see the PowerShot and EOS DSLR lineup getting new additions, and a bit later another EOS R camera body, though the next EOS R body is expected to be “entry level”.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## The Fat Fish (Nov 25, 2018)

I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.

The 5DIV was a step in the right direction and the sensor was much better than the 5DSR. Let’s hope the sensor holds up in areas other than just resolution.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Nov 25, 2018)

I imagine that most CR readers are as unsurprised by this rumor as I am (not so much).

Exciting times ahead for photographers who have learned to trust Canon, and enticing times ahead for all of us (some non-Canon shooters) who know how to use these wonderful tools.

As I've posted previously here, I've postponed my purchase of the 11-24 EF lens--I'm looking forward to what Canon offers in the R mount wide-angle 'version'.


----------



## padam (Nov 25, 2018)

I just hope they don't forget equipping it with 4k recording with the appropriate crop for the video enthusiasts.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 25, 2018)

umm how bout 35-45MP Pro EOS R ALL AROUND MODEL with DUAL DIGICS something for us DO-ALL Shooters of fashion,portraits and sports 7-9fps with continuous AF and better full frame 4K video and AF and DUAL CARD SLOTS nobody cares about 75MP


----------



## RobbieHat (Nov 25, 2018)

Interested in this and certainly the new RF lenses. I will need to see some improvement in DR and higher ISO performance for it to really be a winner in my mind. Could also make a great wildlife camera if the FPS are anything about 4 or 5 FPS.


----------



## cpsico (Nov 25, 2018)

Another pointless megapixel race, without IBIS,high dynamic range and and flawless working Eye detection this seems overkill.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 25, 2018)

What about DPAF with horizontal AND vetical AF capabilities by alternating orientations of the dual pixel groups? Would make it much easier than Quad Pixel architectures (2 times the data compared to DP).

And essantially a 17 Mpixel camera with RGGB-Arrays for each image pixel ... if they manage to make an on-chip readout for these arrays. So maybe dual use: very high res (landscape, product) OR better low light IQ and faster tracking with lower pixel count (all types of action).


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 25, 2018)

LOL. As always lots of people claiming this camera is pointless when what they simply mean is that the camera isn't the one they want. There are plenty of people, myself included, who would make great use of this.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 25, 2018)

padam said:


> I just hope they don't forget equipping it with 4k recording with the appropriate crop for the video enthusiasts.



If you have some 10500 pixel image width you can use close to 8k pixels width for video and the crop would be around 1.3: Using 2x2 R/GG/B pixels is easy to convert to RGB colors: No debayering necessary - maybe that is some idea to increase the pixel count?


----------



## markphoto (Nov 25, 2018)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> umm how bout 35-45MP Pro EOS R ALL AROUND MODEL with DUAL DIGICS something for us DO-ALL Shooters of fashion,portraits and sports 7-9fps with continuous AF and better full frame 4K video and AF and DUAL CARD SLOTS nobody cares about 75MP



Amen!


----------



## oXo_se (Nov 25, 2018)

This is the camera that i have been waiting for


----------



## Rockskipper (Nov 25, 2018)

Better have a fast computer processor for those kind of images, plus lots of memory. And can PS keep up?
And if you're a pixel peeper, you're *******!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 25, 2018)

I remember the year 2000 when I had a 1600X1200 pixel camera. There was no need for images of that size because they were larger than any display could show, and here we are now, 18 years later, and the same argument continues 

For some people, this is true. For others, false. If the camera is not for you, so what? Don't deny others their tool.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 25, 2018)

markphoto said:


> Amen!



Thirded.

I would be so grateful for a mirrorless 5DV no later than 2020 (provided it does what I'd like it to, namely: 1) has a lightning fast sensor readout, 2) dual slots, 3) incredible eye AF)


----------



## ethanz (Nov 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I remember the year 2000 when I had a 1600X1200 pixel camera. There was no need for images of that size because they were larger than any display could show, and here we are now, 18 years later, and the same argument continues
> 
> For some people, this is true. For others, false. If the camera is not for you, so what? Don't deny others their tool.



We want 75mp cat pictures Don, not some 2mp nature scene. Get on it please.


----------



## Adelino (Nov 25, 2018)

Sounds intriguing. The entry level model.... hmm that would be more my speed but what could they cut from the R?


----------



## razorzec (Nov 25, 2018)

So, how would they name it?

EOS RDs? RDs R? Rs? RsR? RR?


----------



## RGF (Nov 25, 2018)

interesting ... wonder if the R lenses will support this resolution?

Also would be nice to see if Canon could solve the problem of keeping AF working at high FPS in ML camera


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 25, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Sounds intriguing. The entry level model.... hmm that would be more my speed but what could they cut from the R?


My feeling is that the "R" is the introductory model, and that what comes next will be painfull to our bank accounts


----------



## LensFungus (Nov 25, 2018)

I guess it will face the same situation as the Canon EOS 5DSR. Everybody was so excited and when it was released people and internet reviews were like "Wait Canon, what did you do to the dynamic range?". Since the 5DSR video has become more and more important for gear review pages and even though I don't care much about video in this upcoming camera others will.

I'm sure it will be a fine camera for me but looking at Canon's camera releases of the last years I'm also sure that the gear reviewing pages will criticize it for being behind. Well, at least not with megapixels. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> LOL. As always lots of people claiming this camera is pointless when what they simply mean is that the camera isn't the one they want. There are plenty of people, myself included, who would make great use of this.


Doesn't it go without saying that somebody posting in a forum is expressing their own personal opinion? In my opinion, we don't have to say, every single time we post something, "In my opinion..."!

Thanks for letting me get that off my hairy chest.

As for the next RF mount being "entry level," I agree with Don Haines, the current EOS R is entry level! IN MY (our?) OPINION.

And, IN MY OPINION, I also can wait with my 5D IV until 2020 for a new body, and still feel as if I have a chance, IN MY OPINION, to get some half way decent shots.

Heck, I just ordered the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC, which, IN MY OPINION, got some great reviews. This lens might, IN MY OPINION, just keep me satisfied for a while in the fast, approximately 50mm range, give or take 5mm, until I lose enough marbles to buy a future RF body plus the magical (IN MY OPINION) RF 50mm f/1.2L.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 25, 2018)

It's all about the quality of the sensor in my opinion. I mean, the 5D4 was a jump forward in DR, and it is a great sensor. I'd like to see another forward move, with the realization that higher sensor density goes against DR in one respect (pixel-level DR). 75 MPX isn't for me right now, given that I'd have to upgrade my computer system to deal with the huge files. But it's still forward progress.


----------



## TAF (Nov 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My feeling is that the "R" is the introductory model, and that what comes next will be painfull to our bank accounts




I'll second that. And I'm not certain my felines are ready for 75 MP close-ups.

I think I would prefer a 22-25 MP version with effective (low grain) ISO into the 200K range.

While I am fine with one card slot, I do wish it were CF; SD's are too easy to drop when my fingers are cold.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 25, 2018)

And when will diffraction set in????


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2018)

If you are happy with lower resolution sensors and don't need anything more, then it is absolutely fine. But don't knock high resolution sensors just because you don't need them as there are some of us who do benefit from the increased resolution.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 25, 2018)

And, how exactly will 75 MP work on a dual pixel system?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 25, 2018)

analoggrotto said:


> And, how exactly will 75 MP work on a dual pixel system?


... the same way it would without dual pixel architecture.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> And when will diffraction set in????


When diffraction sets in is determined by pixel size and f-number. The DLA for a 75 mpx FF sensor is f/5.5, so diffraction won't seriously affect the current fast zooms and primes.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 25, 2018)

cpsico said:


> Another pointless megapixel race, without IBIS,high dynamic range and and flawless working Eye detection this seems overkill.



Yes, because studio photographers are well known for their need of IBIS or extreme DR. And even DPR reports that the R’s one-shot AF is classleading.

But of course a camera is totally useless unless it happend to have exactly the strong points of whatever competing model is currently in vogue among Internet gearheads.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Doesn't it go without saying that somebody posting in a forum is expressing their own personal opinion? In my opinion, we don't have to say, every single time we post something, "In my opinion..."!
> 
> Thanks for letting me get that off my hairy chest.
> 
> ...


Read this: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Opinions Are Like Assholes.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 25, 2018)

I think some of the negative "reactions" to 75 MP camera rumor are understandable. Many of us invested in Canon lenses, I'd venture to say, would just love to see a camera that can equal or outshoot Nikon's D850 in any light. Another niche camera for product photography and formal, static portrait work would certainly be useful to some, but wouldn't a Canon D850 buster, in either a dSLR or mirrorless body, be appealing to a larger number of photographers?

Canon quality and service PLUS fully featured bodies. What's unreasonable or hyper-critical about wishing for such a combination?

Does anybody have hope that we might be looking at an industry transforming, quantum leap here? That we'd be getting a low light, high FPS, full-frame 4k destroyer of all competition? Or just a 5Dsr on MP steroids?


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 25, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ... the same way it would without dual pixel architecture.



It would make sense to have a stills dedicated body w/o DPAF. 

While the rest of us wait for the 40 MP 5D Mirrorless with competitive modern stats and the almighty IBIS and stare blankly at 2 year old A7 reviews.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 25, 2018)

After close to 1000 pictures with the R in the most adverse lighting conditions
there is only one pain point: It is too small for me. Grip and controls of the 
5D MkIV are grievously missed.


----------



## Talys (Nov 25, 2018)

I suppose it's a good thing that 2TB and 4TB SSDs are getting cheaper O.O


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 25, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I think some of the negative "reactions" to 75 MP camera rumor are understandable. Many of us invested in Canon lenses, I'd venture to say, would just love to see a camera that can equal or outshoot Nikon's D850 in any light. Another niche camera for product photography and formal, static portrait work would certainly be useful to some, but wouldn't a Canon D850 buster, in either a dSLR or mirrorless body, be appealing to a larger number of photographers?
> 
> Canon quality and service PLUS fully featured bodies. What's unreasonable or hyper-critical about wishing for such a combination?
> 
> Does anybody have hope that we might be looking at an industry transforming, quantum leap here? That we'd be getting a low light, high FPS, full-frame 4k destroyer of all competition? Or just a 5Dsr on MP steroids?



I read the '75MP' headline with a degree of trepidation... But Really we should wait until the camera actually exits before trashing it!

Resolution is just an attribute of a sensor - as is dynamic range, high ISO noise, tonal range, colour response etc etc. I know people on the internet like to fixate of one individual attribute as the 'be all' of sensor performance, but the the truth is all are important, and you should judge a sensor on the pictures it produces.

And if Canon do push the boat out, and produce a 75MP chip - we shall have to see what it can do before deciding if its good/bad or ken rockwell. It would be really cool if Canon could produce a high res Low ISO monster, and at the press of a button and 18/19MP high ISO monster in the same body....


----------



## Daner (Nov 25, 2018)

The EOS R seems to many of us to be a mirrorless 6DMKII, which is just fine as a starting point. I'm looking forward to RF-mount updates of the 5DMkIV and 7DMkII, while others are doubtless looking forward to RF-mount replacements for their 5DSRs and 1DXMKIIs.

When they do get the dual-card versions, I wouldn't mind seeing SD with UHS-II write speeds for both slots instead of the current mix. Also wouldn't mind sticking with LP-E6N batteries. Just give us everything that we like about our current models, but add something that we will find compelling enough to motivate us to upgrade within the family.

Some of the competition is looking really good right now (A7III, D500, and D850 in particular). Give us reasons to be glad that we haven't sold our glass and jumped ship.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 25, 2018)

It's so funny. Canon is always trashed for their lack of innovation and being so conservative. And yet, if they come out with a camera that is innovative and not at all conservative and they are trashed for that as well. Says little about Canon and lots about the trolling nature of forum dwellers.


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> I suppose it's a good thing that 2TB and 4TB SSDs are getting cheaper O.O



I notice that when Canon releases a new high res body (such as the 5Ds) this argument of storage space gets trotted out all the time, but when Nikon releases the D850, or Sony the A7R3, no body bats an eyelid. 

In three years of shooting with the 5DS, I have produced 700GB (and that is without clearing out the rubbish) - hardly hard drive armageddon!


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 25, 2018)

Tom W said:


> It's all about the quality of the sensor in my opinion. I mean, the 5D4 was a jump forward in DR, and it is a great sensor. I'd like to see another forward move, with the realization that higher sensor density goes against DR in one respect (pixel-level DR). 75 MPX isn't for me right now, given that I'd have to upgrade my computer system to deal with the huge files. But it's still forward progress.



You can always have a 75 mpx camera and shoot at a lower resolution. Theoretically a 75 mpx camera shot at 30 mpx would be better than a 30 mpx camera shot at 30 mpx.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Nov 25, 2018)

For those of us who need high resolution in a Canon full frame camera, the 5DsR has been an outstanding tool. I've gotten more than my money's worth from mine. 

With 100MP miniMF systems on the horizon, with their obvious appeal to a number of landscape photographers, a 75Mp full frame Canon system seems like a logical next step from the 5DsR. Despite the usual concerns about dynamic range and noise... I'm sure that the performance will be at least as good as the current model in those regards.

I also think that in most ways the 5DsR series is a fine candidate for a mirrorless body. I mostly use my 5DsR for landscape photography on the tripod, and I essentially always shoot in live view mode, so that transition would not be an issue. 

I think Canon will need to at least equal (and, I hope improve at least a bit) the AF performance in a hypothetical high MP mirrorless camera. Some of us use the 5DsR for things other than landscape — I use mine for bird photography — and we still need at least decent performance in AF.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 25, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.



At the same view or print size the 5Dsr has cleaner files than the D810 throughout its ISO range. Note that in most image editors when you view files side by side at the same percentage the higher MP file is enlarged more.

The D810 does have a significant DR advantage at base ISO.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 25, 2018)

LensFungus said:


> I guess it will face the same situation as the Canon EOS 5DSR. Everybody was so excited and when it was released people and internet reviews were like "Wait Canon, what did you do to the dynamic range?"



No one was saying that. The 5Dsr had the highest DR of any Canon camera released up until that point. Even reviewers who normally hammered Canon on DR, like Tony Northrup, made note of the fact that while the 5Dsr was still behind Sony and Nikon on DR, it had decent DR. Especially when you traded some resolution for NR in the shadows.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> It's so funny. Canon is always trashed for their lack of innovation and being so conservative. And yet, if they come out with a camera that is innovative and not at all conservative and they are trashed for that as well. Says little about Canon and lots about the trolling nature of forum dwellers.


Wow. Unless there is universal agreement, out comes the "t" word. Thanks. Nicely elevating the thread.

I have nothing against the concept of a well done 75 MP camera, except perhaps for the file size, which we'll be adapting to sooner or later. 


The main point though, with high MP announcements, is that many of us who don't lust after more MP are just hoping Canon comes out with a great, well rounded successor to the 5D IV, likely RF at this point, which has excellent low-light performance, fast FPS, top of class AF, and video features that make sense.


Maybe in a perfect forum world, only people actually interested in a 75 MP camera as Canon's next big thing would participate in the thread. But that would be on another planet, not a place where normal humans reasonably wonder if Canon could try to address the basics at 50 MP before producing another higher MP niche body.


If you are willing to spend the money on a 75 MP body, it would be nice, not required, just nice, if you could in a calm and friendly way explain why. Many here do, but others seem to get angry at anything other than cheerleading.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 25, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I notice that when Canon releases a new high res body (such as the 5Ds) this argument of storage space gets trotted out all the time, but when Nikon releases the D850, or Sony the A7R3, no body bats an eyelid.



Along the same lines, a Canon high resolution sensor must be horrible at high ISO, right? 5Ds/sr reviewers who were stuck pixel peeping said exactly this. Reviewers who actually tried printing files (i.e. same view size) found that the 5Ds/sr were two of the best high ISO cameras out there (2015), despite Canon artificially capping them to 12,800. (Really should have been 25,600.)

But even with Sony/Nikon that speaks to the general myth that lower resolution = better high ISO. For stills I've found the exact opposite when comparing files from all three manufacturers, low and high resolution bodies, *all at the same view size.* That last part is critical.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 25, 2018)

Lots of talk about the body, but I am surprised so little talk about the lens mention. Am I the only person to whom the phrase that jumped out is the upcoming best landscape lens in Canon's lineup? Doesn't anyone besides me want to know what that is?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Read this: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Opinions Are Like Assholes.


As the father of two toddlers, one still in diapers but eating like a construction worker, I'm glad we have many opinions but only one egress.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 25, 2018)

analoggrotto said:


> It would make sense to have a stills dedicated body w/o DPAF.



Are you presuming that manufacturing a new non-DPAF sensor will be so much cheaper than DPAF, that production will recoup the development cost? Color me skeptical.


----------



## Talys (Nov 25, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I notice that when Canon releases a new high res body (such as the 5Ds) this argument of storage space gets trotted out all the time, but when Nikon releases the D850, or Sony the A7R3, no body bats an eyelid.
> 
> In three years of shooting with the 5DS, I have produced 700GB (and that is without clearing out the rubbish) - hardly hard drive armageddon!


I bring it up all the time - not just storage but the time to transfer a card. 

If a file is 50MB and an afternoon shoot can be 500-1000 photos, do the math  

I was not being facetious about storage costs. I just bought 4x 2TB SSDs for photography data storage, replacing a couple of hdd, and a pile of 1tb and a 500gb ssd. I realize that this is not as big a problem for some people, but I do know that there are others who accumulate 5TB++ every year -and we're talking 30MP and less cameras.


----------



## bellorusso (Nov 25, 2018)

Canon reminds Microsoft. When iphones took over the world stupid Steve Ballmer could not care less about how fast technology moved on. Microsoft never caught up.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 25, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> And when will diffraction set in????



At around 3.5um which is what you need for ~75 megapixels you'll hit diffraction issues starting around f/8


----------



## SV (Nov 25, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So, how would they name it?
> 
> EOS RDs? RDs R? Rs? RsR? RR?



EOS R2D2


----------



## padam (Nov 25, 2018)

s66 said:


> A very high MP camera is utterly overkill for 4K video (it's only got less than 8 MP in the file) , let's hope they don't waste effort, time and cost on including video at all. High MP is for stills, not for video.


Seriously, no one seems to be able to get a joke these days.


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> I bring it up all the time - not just storage but the time to transfer a card.
> 
> If a file is 50MB and an afternoon shoot can be 500-1000 photos, do the math


50MB is almost the minimum size - I have seen raw files upto 90MB from the 5DS (can probbbly go larger still). It can take a few minutes to move the images off the card, but it's not a big deal.


----------



## SaP34US (Nov 25, 2018)

If release a 75 mp camera it would certainly have uncropped 4K (maybe downsamped from 6K).
My guess is that might be 4 FF mirrorlesses coming next year.
High end models as follows:
1.1d/5DSR type camera with 75 mp and 4K uncroppped. 5 or $5.5k 
2. 5 DSR/ 5D type camera with 50 mp with 4k. $4.5k maybe $5k
Lower end models as follows:
3. 6d/7d type ff/w crop mode 26mp with 4K. $1800
4. 7d/80D or (90D)type camera only in ff 24 mp w/4K uncropped or possibly cropped only in crop mode. $1600


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 26, 2018)

SaP34US said:


> If release a 75 mp camera it would certainly have uncropped 4K (maybe downsamped from 6K).



Uncropped would have to be sampled from a lot more than 6K on a 75MP camera, unless they skip lines.


----------



## jeanluc (Nov 26, 2018)

I really want to see a 5dsr 2 come out, hopefully mirrorless. I do like high resolution bodies, and with the new RF lenses this should be a great combo. I really hope though that they can pull this off with DR at least as good as the 5D4. I was hoping for something around 50 mp, basically a mirrorless 5dsr. And although storage is cheaper than ever, 75 mp files would be just crazy large. So maybe just making a really, really good 50 mp sensor in a more 5d-like R body would not be such a bad idea. I think that’s what a lot of us 5dsr owners would go for. Or maybe just me.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Are you presuming that manufacturing a new non-DPAF sensor will be so much cheaper than DPAF, that production will recoup the development cost? Color me skeptical.



I'm not. Its been said that DPAF, by virtue to the fact that it forces the pixels to be smaller may hinder the image quality. I am hoping that at Dual Pixel Raw Mode is more usable on future cameras. I may start using it more on my 5D4.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Wow. Unless there is universal agreement, out comes the "t" word. Thanks. Nicely elevating the thread.
> 
> I have nothing against the concept of a well done 75 MP camera, except perhaps for the file size, which we'll be adapting to sooner or later.
> 
> ...



No offence, but you obviously did not understand my post. 

I'll put it more simply. People trash Canon for not being innovative and for being conservative. And now, on this thread, people trash Canon for being too innovative and not conservative enough. So people are trashing Canon regardless. If all you do is trash Canon regardless of what they do, I would consider that to be trolling. Got it?


----------



## elephant_man (Nov 26, 2018)

jeanluc said:


> I was hoping for something around 50 mp, basically a mirrorless 5dsr. And although storage is cheaper than ever, 75 mp files would be just crazy large. So maybe just making a really, really good 50 mp sensor in a more 5d-like R body would not be such a bad idea. I think that’s what a lot of us 5dsr owners would go for. Or maybe just me.



I think you're correct. I was also hoping they would leave the sensor at 50 mp and work on cleaning up noise and adding a little dynamic range. At 50 mp Canon would still be leading in resolution for full frame cameras.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

jeanluc said:


> I really want to see a 5dsr 2 come out, hopefully mirrorless. I do like high resolution bodies, and with the new RF lenses this should be a great combo. I really hope though that they can pull this off with DR at least as good as the 5D4. I was hoping for something around 50 mp, basically a mirrorless 5dsr. And although storage is cheaper than ever, 75 mp files would be just crazy large. So maybe just making a really, really good 50 mp sensor in a more 5d-like R body would not be such a bad idea. I think that’s what a lot of us 5dsr owners would go for. Or maybe just me.



The trade offs that people imagine exist for high resolution sensors do not actually exist, at least not at this point in 35mm sized sensors. Using the same technology a Canon 50mp sensor is not going to have any advantage over a 75mp sensor except file size. 

Low ISO DR is driven primarily by ADC architecture and not pixel size as evidenced by the fact that Sony/Nikon 42/45mp 35mm sensors have the highest tested DR. Not lower resolution 35mm sensors, or even MF sensors with much larger pixels. For that matter the 5Dsr had the highest DR of any Canon DSLR until they released bodies with on-chip ADCs.

Total image noise at high ISO is also unaffected by pixel size. Higher resolution files look worse when you pixel peep. They look better viewed at the same print size.

Depending on sensor readout speed, and the method used to scale down to 4k or 1080p, a higher resolution sensor could be at a disadvantage for video. But not for stills.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 26, 2018)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm not. Its been said that DPAF, by virtue to the fact that it forces the pixels to be smaller may hinder the image quality. I am hoping that at Dual Pixel Raw Mode is more usable on future cameras. I may start using it more on my 5D4.


That may have been said, but it isn’t necessarily true and there is no evidence of it (there are no sensors which are otherwise the same with which to compare).



dtaylor said:


> Low ISO DR is driven primarily by ADC architecture



I find that unlikely. DR is a function of well capacity and noise. The ADC likely doesn’t add significant noise (quantization error), and it doesn’t improve well capacity. 

QE in the other hand is of significant importance.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 26, 2018)

Fair enough, good conversation on the matter. The 5D4 sensor is such a leap above the 5D3's; I hope they can keep the momentum for the next gen.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I find that unlikely.



Observation trumps theory. The available evidence shows large changes in DR with changes in ADC architecture (off chip vs. on chip) yet the highest DR sensors available today have relatively small pixels (D8x0 series; A7r3).


----------



## dsm363 (Nov 26, 2018)

I'd love better low light performance more than higher megapixels but both would be nice.


----------



## captainkanji (Nov 26, 2018)

I’m definitely interested. I guess I’d better start saving. Gonna need a decent tripod.


----------



## 6degrees (Nov 26, 2018)

Hope for RF 20mm F1.2. But will be fine if RF 24mm F1.2.

Another one is RF 85mm F1.2.

*With option switch of de-click for the front control ring/aperture ring, like those offered on Sony GM lenses. The screw drive option on Zeiss Loxia is acceptable.*


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Observation trumps theory. The available evidence shows large changes in DR with changes in ADC architecture (off chip vs. on chip) yet the highest DR sensors available today have relatively small pixels (D8x0 series; A7r3).


That’s overall system architecture, not ADC architecture.

It’s not scientific (no control group) but sure, it’s better than blind speculation.


----------



## Grimbald (Nov 26, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Lots of talk about the body, but I am surprised so little talk about the lens mention. Am I the only person to whom the phrase that jumped out is the upcoming best landscape lens in Canon's lineup? Doesn't anyone besides me want to know what that is?




Maybe the 14-21 f1.4?
Or a 11-24 f2.8?

With all the fantastic lenses that Canon has, I've always felt that they could do a bit better with their super wide angle selection. They did a great job with the 16-35 III but they sort of lack a 14-24 (such as Sigma or Nikons great choices) and a something that could compete against the 14 f1.8. 



For the body.... I just hope it will not be crippeld in terms of DR/low light and offer an option to compromise files down to smaller RAW sizes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 26, 2018)

Grimbald said:


> For the body.... I just hope it will not be crippeld in terms of DR...



Can you name an ILC body from the last decade with crippled dynamic range?


----------



## Nelu (Nov 26, 2018)

cpsico said:


> Another pointless megapixel race, without IBIS,high dynamic range and and flawless working Eye detection this seems overkill.


This seems to be a high resolution camera for landscape, architecture, etc, therefore I don't give a damn about eye detection and IBIS.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2018)

Bye bye DSLR. Much much sooner than I anticipated.


----------



## SaP34US (Nov 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Uncropped would have to be sampled from a lot more than 6K on a 75MP camera, unless they skip lines.


Samlped form 8k


----------



## Talys (Nov 26, 2018)

Just a thought, CR3 makes 75MP much more palatable than CR2, or Sony's compressed raw option (which has quite a noticeable drop in quality). I wonder what the CR3 (compressed) file size will be.

If Canon gets the rest of the camera right, I think it might be one I buy -- a high megapixel camera would be a nice tool in the kit.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 26, 2018)

dak723 said:


> No offence, but you obviously did not understand my post.
> 
> I'll put it more simply. People trash Canon for not being innovative and for being conservative. And now, on this thread, people trash Canon for being too innovative and not conservative enough. So people are trashing Canon regardless. If all you do is trash Canon regardless of what they do, I would consider that to be trolling. Got it?


I'm not tracking the people you see as offenders, meaning I don't know who is complaining both ways. But it is so easy to just lose patience and call those who don't share enthusiasm a troll. From what I understand, a troll is somebody who, perversely, posts in a forum for the sole purpose of angering reasonable forum members. 

But what I'm reading in this thread, for the most part, is understandable frustration, skepticism, and concern. You might not agree with such sentiments, but people spending thousands of dollars, sometimes unwisely in terms of their own budgets, get emotional, cynical, and even bitter. If they are posting simply to express their feelings (and I'm seeing quite the surge in newer members since the EOS R was released), are we to just call them all trolls--without even engaging first to find out what their actual issues might be with a Canon releasing a 75 MP before, say, a best in class 40-50 MP? (Maybe Canon has discovered the Holy Grail of sensor tech, who knows?)

Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling? I don't think it is. Yes, Canon makes calculated, clear-eyed business decisions that have kept it the leader, but, as a customer, I can't help look at the competition and think to myself, I wish Canon made one like that. So, while I support the development of higher resolution bodies and lenses for those seeking such specifications, I'd also like to see Canon addressing the desires of many other photographers who, like myself, aren't seeking more MP at this time.

Is it rude to say, "Hey, what about me? My photography desires deserve priority!" while in a thread about rumored gear a member doesn't find appealing? In a way, yes, I'll grant you that, dak723. But it's an open forum with relaxed rules about staying on topic, and people react with their first thought, little filtering. I don't think it is helpful to just classify such posts as trolling, because, one, they are not, and two, it doesn't help the thread, the person posting, or the general feeling of goodwill that CR manages to maintain better than many other sites.

Just my opinion!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 26, 2018)

"About damn time," is what I will say as I unbox it.


----------



## Adelino (Nov 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My feeling is that the "R" is the introductory model, and that what comes next will be painfull to our bank accounts


Canon have said they release higher and lower models.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...are we to just call them all trolls--without even engaging first to find out what their actual issues might be with a Canon releasing a 75 MP before, say, a best in class 40-50 MP? (Maybe Canon has discovered the Holy Grail of sensor tech, who knows?)



I won't call them trolls, but I will point out (again) that there's no reason to believe a 50mp sensor would be better than a 75mp sensor for a given level of technology. I'm not saying higher pixel density never involves trade offs. But at this point in time it doesn't seem to involve any trade offs for the pixel densities we're seeing in APS-C and 35mm sensors.



> Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling?...So, while I support the development of higher resolution bodies and lenses for those seeking such specifications, I'd also like to see Canon addressing the desires of many other photographers who, like myself, aren't seeking more MP at this time.



If you're not seeking more MP then what does the D850 really offer over the 5D4? The only thing that stands out is a higher frame rate when using a battery grip. Even the DR gap is so narrow, in this comparison, as to be of little practical value.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 26, 2018)

Good one. I'd probably buy it. 75mp sounds like a little bit of overkill though. Even for my landscape photography. Although if there's a special low-light and HDR 18mp mode with oversampling from 75mp, it'd be very nice.


----------



## proutprout (Nov 26, 2018)

To all the haters who trashed this camera : canon please take my money ! 75M pix dont make sense but it’s a good enough reason to but something we dont need ! Better than 75M, please Canon deliver a new R pro line with IBIS, 120fpsHD, so i can finally find a way to spend 10k !


----------



## proutprout (Nov 26, 2018)

s66 said:


> A very high MP camera is utterly overkill for 4K video (it's only got less than 8 MP in the file) , let's hope they don't waste effort, time and cost on including video at all. High MP is for stills, not for video.


Unless it does 8K, no ?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> [..] If you're not seeking more MP then what does the D850 really offer over the 5D4? The only thing that stands out is a higher frame rate when using a battery grip. Even the DR gap is so narrow, in this comparison, as to be of little practical value.



From the observations I picked up from youtube, AF-Servo tracks things like birds really, really well. I haven't seen a 1:1 comparison between the 5D4 and D850 for that yet, though.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 26, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.
> 
> The 5DIV was a step in the right direction and the sensor was much better than the 5DSR. Let’s hope the sensor holds up in areas other than just resolution.



I agree. I hope that, if Canon's marketing thinks they need to restart the Megapixel race to regain a bold high-tech reputation, they will also release a prosumer R model with a moderate MP count for photographers. Such small pixels on a 35mm sensor don't really make sense, because diffraction blur will limit the range of useful f-stop numbers to well below f/5.6, when closing the aperture further its extremely high resolution will get gradually lost (I know a bit about the inescapable wave nature of light, I am a physicist). So the images get more and more soft on the pixel level with smaller apertures. One can re-sharpen such soft images digitally, of course, but the trade-off is growing artefacts. Once a visual information is lost, it is lost. Btw this is now new finding, you can read about this fact of physics in classic photography textbooks.

I know somebody who still uses old 12 MP Nikons and produces gorgeous A3 (!!) prints in which on can see every little hair and skin pore. You could sell her prints to people as a result of a 40+ MP camera and they would believe it.


----------



## M_S (Nov 26, 2018)

All of the following is IMO I said it before in another thread. I see no point in getting higher than 50 MP. That's plenty of resolution and visible diffraction sets in already at f 7 and is clearly visible at f11. Other areas that needs improving is better ISO performance in existing values and higher ISO overall to compensate for shakes and not normal shooting behaviour because of the high resolution. They need to improve upon snappier performance overall, manual lens assistance (peaking, enlargement area in the EVF etc.), WIFI/bluetooth support for remote control, DPAF, perhaps some fps more. This would be an instant buy. 75 MP pose different problems, at least for my shooting style, as I don't want to rest the camera on the tripod all the time. Computational power is a factor that kicks in panaroma stitching with full force already on a workstation with 2 XEON processors. So I am good with what the 5DSR has to offer in terms of resolution. All that coming from a happy 5DSR owner.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> At around 3.5um which is what you need for ~75 megapixels you'll hit diffraction issues starting around f/8


How did you get f/8? According to TDP, the DLA for the 5DS is f/6.7, which scales to f/5.5 for a 75 mpx sensor - see my earlier post. You can see for MTF charts from photozone that diffraction effects are beginning to set in at f/5.6 for the 5DSR and are noticeable at f/8, which squares with the TDP figure.



AlanF said:


> When diffraction sets in is determined by pixel size and f-number. The DLA for a 75 mpx FF sensor is f/5.5, so diffraction won't seriously affect the current fast zooms and primes.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 26, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree. I hope that, if Canon's marketing thinks they need to restart the Megapixel race to regain a bold high-tech reputation, they will also release a prosumer R model with a moderate MP count for photographers. Such small pixels on a 35mm sensor don't really make sense, because diffraction blur will limit the range of useful f-stop numbers to well below f/5.6, when closing the aperture further its extremely high resolution will get gradually lost (I know a bit about the inescapable wave nature of light, I am a physicist). So the images get more and more soft on the pixel level with smaller apertures. One can re-sharpen such soft images digitally, of course, but the trade-off is growing artefacts. Once a visual information is lost, it is lost. Btw this is now new finding, you can read about this fact of physics in classic photography textbooks.
> 
> I know somebody who still uses old 12 MP Nikons and produces gorgeous A3 (!!) prints in which on can see every little hair and skin pore. You could sell her prints to people as a result of a 40+ MP camera and they would believe it.


I couldn't agree more, a so-called advantage can mean disadvantages in many situations (f/8 to f/16, for example in macro, shake related blur), and we should never forget, that a camera is a whole, and not just more MP than it's competitors. Sorry, but this MP race is getting increasingly senseless (no offence meant). Sounds like buying a car for its horsepower rating only...
For MP hunters, there are Hasselblads, Leica S or Fuji's latest models.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 26, 2018)

jeanluc said:


> I really want to see a 5dsr 2 come out, hopefully mirrorless. I do like high resolution bodies, and with the new RF lenses this should be a great combo. I really hope though that they can pull this off with DR at least as good as the 5D4. I was hoping for something around 50 mp, basically a mirrorless 5dsr. And although storage is cheaper than ever, 75 mp files would be just crazy large. So maybe just making a really, really good 50 mp sensor in a more 5d-like R body would not be such a bad idea. I think that’s what a lot of us 5dsr owners would go for. Or maybe just me.


No, you're not alone!


----------



## padam (Nov 26, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I couldn't agree more, a so-called advantage can mean disadvantages in many situations (f/8 to f/16, for example in macro, shake related blur), and we should never forget, that a camera is a whole, and not just more MP than it's competitors. Sorry, but this MP race is getting increasingly senseless (no offence meant). Sounds like buying a car for its horsepower rating only...
> For MP hunters, there are Hasselblads, Leica S or Fuji's latest models.


So what's exactly the problem with Canon putting their name on this list as well, if they are designing most of their lenses for the new RF mount with higher resolution in mind?
Just like the 5DsR it is a speciality model, which the user can choose or skip (it will be pricey). We haven't even seen the features yet and people are worried.
I wouldn't be surprised it it had a mode not to produce 75MP files.

If it has a DPAF sensor like all current Canon cameras and probably similar dynamic range, but with the usage of a fully electronic shutter, it may also have some trick mode (evolving from the HDR video mode) to use all those pixels to increase the dynamic range if the camera is locked down on a tripod (just like Sony using the electronic shutter for Pixel-Shift mode but this may only be a single exposure, which would increase its usefulness)


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> Such small pixels on a 35mm sensor don't really make sense, because diffraction blur will limit the range of useful f-stop numbers to well below f/5.6...



A higher resolution sensor will never perform worse than a lower resolution sensor due to diffraction or motion blur. Blur may stand out more when pixel peeping at 100% because the higher resolution file is enlarged more, but it's not actually any worse at the same view/print size.

Diffraction is also not a brick wall. "Diffraction Limited Aperture" is terrible terminology because it causes people to think of it as a brick wall. It's a gradually increasing blur effect (which is not consistent across all visible wavelengths of light). A sensor with a DLA of f/5.6 might look the same at f/22 as a lower resolution sensor. But it will yield higher resolution at f/8 and f/11 despite its so called "limited" aperture value.

Jumping from 50mp to 75mp in a 35mm sensor is definitely getting into diminishing returns. But there are returns to be had. It's unlikely this pixel density jump is going to impact high ISO or DR performance, so it doesn't make sense for Canon to avoid doing it if they can. Sticking to 50mp is not going to give them a better sensor for stills.

Video and stills frame rate are two things which might be negatively impacted by such a high resolution. But then again Canon has to have something to put in their 40mp R-5DIV.


----------



## zonoskar (Nov 26, 2018)

That would make a 29Mpix 1.6x crop for EFs lenses. Nice! No need for a 7D equivalent in the EOS-R series then.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 26, 2018)

A couple quick things I thought were interesting:

This was not among the rumored releases: https://www.canonrumors.com/lots-of-new-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras-in-the-pipeline/
We are told we have 2 EOS-R cameras coming, that would put K433 in the above rumor as the ~26 MP EOS-R camera, likely as the first to be released and positioned below the current EOS-R.
~75 MP is approximately 10600x7070 pixels, or about a 1.22x increase in linear resolution over the 5DsR, or about the difference of going from a 500 mm lens to a 600 mm.
75 MP would be equivalent to ~30 MP on crop. That sensor does not yet exist, although is not out of reach. For the 5Ds, Canon upscaled an existing APS-C sensor from the 7DII. I would expect a ~30 MP crop sensor to be coming. Previous rumors about releases were 24 MP, which would scale up to ~61 MP.
This is not one of the Sony sensors Canon is rumored to be considering.



Talys said:


> Just a thought, CR3 makes 75MP much more palatable than CR2, or Sony's compressed raw option (which has quite a noticeable drop in quality). I wonder what the CR3 (compressed) file size will be.
> 
> If Canon gets the rest of the camera right, I think it might be one I buy -- a high megapixel camera would be a nice tool in the kit.


Just what I was thinking. I am all for tools and each of us choosing a different tool for our job, but for this to be appealing to the mass audience you need to address the most significant limitations. 

For large sensor cameras, that is image size. Had they stayed with CR2, a 22% increase in image resolution would give you a 50% larger file. That is pretty significant.

I'd be tempted by this camera. I can tell you the first things I will be looking for are file size in RAW, sRAW, and mRAW and if it has a legit crop sensor mode that shoots a 30 MP/MB crop at ~9-10 fps.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 26, 2018)

People are starting to get very intolerant of other people’s opinions here. Some people want 75MP and others don’t. 
My own perspective is I’d pass on a 75MP camera and hope for a better all rounder than the 5DIV.
I own a 5DSR and a 5DIV and I would always favour the 5DIV. For me and what I photograph it produces better images and is more flexible. 
I find the 50MP files overkill and at the volume I photograph it creates storage issues. 
So great for those who want it if the 75MP comes along. It’s great advertising for Canon. I’ll wait for the 5DR


----------



## Kit. (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Depending on sensor readout speed, and the method used to scale down to 4k or 1080p, a higher resolution sensor could be at a disadvantage for video. But not for stills.


...in an ideal world, where your camera is well-cooled, prefocused and directly connected to the power grid.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I won't call them trolls, but I will point out (again) that there's no reason to believe a 50mp sensor would be better than a 75mp sensor for a given level of technology. I'm not saying higher pixel density never involves trade offs. But at this point in time it doesn't seem to involve any trade offs for the pixel densities we're seeing in APS-C and 35mm sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not seeking more MP then what does the D850 really offer over the 5D4? The only thing that stands out is a higher frame rate when using a battery grip. Even the DR gap is so narrow, in this comparison, as to be of little practical value.


There are some advantages beyond the MP, but there are also trade offs, such as Nikon not having great AF in Live View. Fair enough, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the (brand) fence. I was wishing out loud for MY ideal next RF body, one that keeps all the best features of the 5D IV and marries them blissfully with the best of the D850. (Canon corporate office just smiles, chuckles, and bows.)


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

well canon can easily put more MP on the sensor and sacrificing per pixel image quality.
the chills will then say "you can downsample".
but i want high megapixels images that look good 1:1.... not only when downsampled.

want i want to say is ... if canon does not match D850/ A7R III DR and noise levels with this 75MP camera they should better release a 40-50MP version that focuses on enhancing the shortcommings of current canon sensors.

just putting more MP in a camera is like promoting 8K TV´s when there is basically no 8k content.

the sony sensors get so much praise because they are high megapixel AND have fantastic DR and noise performance.


----------



## Yakodzun (Nov 26, 2018)

Rockskipper said:


> Better have a fast computer processor for those kind of images, plus lots of memory. And can PS keep up?
> And if you're a pixel peeper, you're *******!


I don’t see a problem. MacBook Pro can deal with my Phase One IQ3 80Mp.


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

M


dak723 said:


> It's so funny. Canon is always trashed for their lack of innovation and being so conservative. And yet, if they come out with a camera that is innovative and not at all conservative and they are trashed for that as well. Says little about Canon and lots about the trolling nature



More Megapixel are now innovation..... good you are telling us that.

Or wait ....are you saying the multibar on the eos r is a great innovation?

The innovative thing are the EOS R lenses.... but sure not the EOS R body.
Basically all of the EOS R features can be found in cameras that are a few years old.

Well i said forever that mirrorless should have a sensor dust protection.
That is nice to see in the EOS R


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Heck, I just ordered the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC, which, IN MY OPINION, got some great reviews.



Let us know how you get on with it. It's now my most used lens with very good sharpness across the frame, even at f/1.8, but with a lovely transition and soft bokeh, and this characteristic continues when stopped down. I guess this is why, within the design, Tamron had to allow it to have pretty strong, uncorrected axial CA's.


----------



## Tangent (Nov 26, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So, how would they name it?
> 
> EOS RDs? RDs R? Rs? RsR? RR?



This camera will be intended as Canon's way to get the last laugh over Sony and Nikon; it will therefore be called the RD RR.


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> You can always have a 75 mpx camera and shoot at a lower resolution. Theoretically a 75 mpx camera shot at 30 mpx would be better than a 30 mpx camera shot at 30 mpx.



Smaller photosites are good now.... did not know that. 

I guess you meant to talk about downsampling.

Shooting at 75MP and downsampling to 30 MP.


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Observation trumps theory. The available evidence shows large changes in DR with changes in ADC architecture (off chip vs. on chip) yet the highest DR sensors available today have relatively small pixels (D8x0 series; A7r3).



you compare different sensor technologys.
when you say something like this you better compare exactly the same sensor technology (both BSI, both the same ADC etc.) but with different photosite sizes.

i would place my bet on a sony MF sensor (42MP) with the same technology as the A7 R III, but bigger photosites, would show better DR than the A7 R III.

not that i am saying reducing the influence from the ADC has not a great impact.
but imo you can´t ignore that per pixel quality will suffer with smaller pixels.

how important that is for a "normalized " print size is a different question.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 26, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Sounds intriguing. The entry level model.... hmm that would be more my speed but what could they cut from the R?



easy! My 3 "nerfing suggestions" for entry level EOS R ... in this order:

1. No video and audio recording whatsoever 
2. no M.-fn slider
3. more compact body without Top-LCD


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 26, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So, how would they name it?
> 
> EOS RDs? RDs R? Rs? RsR? RR?



EF lenses support 250 mp sensors Canon makes so this should be pretty easy for new R lenses to support.


----------



## sdz (Nov 26, 2018)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> umm how bout 35-45MP Pro EOS R ALL AROUND MODEL with DUAL DIGICS something for us DO-ALL Shooters of fashion,portraits and sports 7-9fps with continuous AF and better full frame 4K video and AF and DUAL CARD SLOTS nobody cares about 75MP



Some care about 70 MP. And, I'm sure Canon will provide R mount cameras for them.



YuengLinger said:


> {snip}
> 
> Another niche camera for product photography and formal, static portrait work would certainly be useful to some, but wouldn't a Canon D850 buster, in either a dSLR or mirrorless body, be appealing to a larger number of photographers?
> 
> {snip}



By releasing a 70 MP R mount camera, Canon merely filled one slot in its expanding product portfolio. By doing so, Canon can, if it wishes and has the technology, develop cameras that exceed the specifications of Nikon's 850 camera. The former does not make the latter impossible.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 26, 2018)

elephant_man said:


> I think you're correct. I was also hoping they would leave the sensor at 50 mp and work on cleaning up noise and adding a little dynamic range. At 50 mp Canon would still be leading in resolution for full frame cameras.



Basically sums up what I was going to say. Although I still prefer the colors out of the 5DsR to the newer 5D4 or R, which seem to have a flatter output and err more to the green end of the spectrum (most noticeable in portrait shots). 

In many ways I think the 5DsR is the best stills camera Canon has ever made - and the only Canon camera to date with the AA filter cancelled to allow for maximum detail capture. At low ISO (800 and below) IQ blows me away. It’s purely a photographer’s camera and I love that about it. 

That said, the one (other) area they could really improve the camera is vibration reduction. Despite the manufacturing precautions taken, vibrations and blurring can still be still a big issue with the 5DSR. If they decide to take its replacement ML, this is the body to debut IBIS in, no question about it. Also, if they can resolve the IQ issues with using electronic shutter curtain (silent or quiet shooting modes), that would help immensely.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 26, 2018)

For all those thinking 75mp is way too many for a 135 format sensor I'd remind you all that an iPhone has an approximately 40mm² 12MP sensor, a 135 format 'FF' sensor is around 860mm². To get the pixel size and density we are currently using very happily with the most used cameras in the world that FF sensor would need to be in the 250MP range.

Now I know there are caveats with lenses, low light etc etc, but I am regularly blown away by the output from phones nowadays and most of those caveats are overcome with a much bigger sensor. Remember, again, noise is not a function of pixel size but sensor area.

I'd take a 75MP R over a 50MP 5DSR any day not least of which because I can use an adapter with my EF lenses and filter them, at this point filter solutions for my 15mm fisheye, TS-E 17 and 11-24 are not good or cheap or small, and the extra pixel density wouldn't faze me at all.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Nov 26, 2018)

Looking forward to seeing this as my 5DS will be about 5 years old by that point. Also with the high resolution canon being at 75 MPixels maybe the faster 5DIV equivalent will be in the 45 MPixel area much like the D850. That would make for 3 pretty compelling mirrorless options on the canon side of the fence. Add in a 24-30MPixel that can do 20 frames per second for the olympics and we have the full spectrum. Really in all these cases I think the only thing holding canon back is the processing power of their chips....ok maybe getting 20 fps off the sensor quickly enough to be close to global shutter equivalent is another thing canon will need to solve but I'm really looking forward to what is going to come out in the next year or two.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 26, 2018)

Amazing how juicy speculation is - 6 pages before I even got a chance to view it! I'm predicting an implant behind the eyes and a digic brain replacement, offered by Canon at their facility. That's assuming the rich and powerful haven't turned us all into robots to bow and serve and work for nothing, sooner.

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Nov 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Amazing how juicy speculation is - 6 pages before I even got a chance to view it! I'm predicting an implant behind the eyes and a digic brain replacement, offered by Canon at their facility. That's assuming the rich and powerful haven't turned us all into robots to bow and serve and work for nothing, sooner.
> 
> Jack



You are getting kind of far fetched there, Jack!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 26, 2018)

ethanz said:


> You are getting kind of far fetched there, Jack!


So you don't think my rumour will gain traction!

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Nov 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> So you don't think my rumour will gain traction!
> 
> Jack



Give it a CR2 and you'll gain traction.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> you compare different sensor technologys.
> when you say something like this you better compare exactly the same sensor technology (both BSI, both the same ADC etc.) but with different photosite sizes.



The Sony A7r III and A7 III have the same sensor tech and the same DR despite the latter having larger pixels.



> but imo you can´t ignore that per pixel quality will suffer with smaller pixels.



Apparently not at the densities we currently see on FF and APS-C sensors.


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> That's assuming the rich and powerful haven't turned us all into robots to bow and serve and work for nothing, sooner.



you work for exposure.....


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> The Sony A7r III and A7 III have the same sensor tech and the same DR despite the latter having larger pixels.
> .



you mean it the tests where they normalize the image to 8MP.

from 3200 ISO, you start to see more noise from the A7R III and it becomes more evident from 6400 ISO upwards.

again i am not saying pixel size makes a huge difference today.
but imo there should be one (difference) just from a statistical/physical point of view (well capacity, noise , SNR ratio etc.)

someone who put way more time and effort into this than i would:


http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/



> We do observe a difference in image quality in the images output from a camera with larger versus small pixels. But such difference can be effectively mitigated in post processing as illustrated in Figures 10 and 11.
> 
> When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, times have changed. A decade ago, I would have chosen the camera with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) to get better high ISO and low light performance. Today I would choose the higher megapixel (thus smaller pixels). Modern cameras with high megapixel count, low read noise and low electronics noise allow one to trade resolution and noise. If one wants reasonable dynamic range in a high megapixel camera, the pixels must still be large enough to hold enough photoelectrons to give the dynamic range. Currently (circa 2016), that is not much smaller than 4 micron pixel spacing. For example, the 50 megapixel Canon 5DS(r) fits this criteria, and Nikon's D800 and D810 are in the same league.
> 
> Pixels smaller than 4 microns can often be limited (lower contrast and loss of fine detail) by diffraction. But now that system noise is low in modern cameras, adding pixels together to synthesize an image from a sensor with larger pixels, diffraction limited smaller pixels is less of a concern.


----------



## SaP34US (Nov 26, 2018)

I would say the 75 mp camera will come late next year and if there a second higher next year will come out earlier in the year will be 50mp.
One of the lower end models will have 26mp or 30mp with some different specs than the EOS R that is currently out and one with 24mp or 26mp with similar specs to EOS R but something less then the new camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> you mean it the tests where they normalize the image to 8MP.



Choose whatever _image_ dimensions you like. The results will be the same.



> from 3200 ISO, you start to see more noise from the A7R III and it becomes more evident from 6400 ISO upwards.



Not at the same view size. Here they are at 25,600, RAW, same view size:




The noise is sharper (vs. A7 III) but so is the whole image. And there's not more of it. Whether you print as is for maximum sharpness or apply some NR, the A7r III image will come out on top.

To be clear: all currently shipping FF bodies are excellent at high ISO. There's not even 1 stop difference between the best and the worst. But if we nitpick we find that it's not the lower resolution bodies that come out on top.



> again i am not saying pixel size makes a huge difference today.
> but imo there should be one (difference) just from a statistical/physical point of view (well capacity, noise , SNR ratio etc.)



Obsessing over "pixel quality" is missing the forest for the trees. If you have gapless micro-lenses the total image noise will be the same. Smaller pixels just means a higher sampling frequency resulting in higher resolution and ooc sharpness. The character of the noise is different because it is 'sharper' as well. That may annoy some people, but you have more room for NR in that case.

Well capacity is a real thing and should in theory mean that larger pixel sensors have higher DR. But for some reason it hasn't since at least 2012 (D800 release). For whatever reason, architecture has trumped this. Even with Canon's older, off-chip ADC architecture the highest DR sensor was also the highest pixel density sensor.

At this time you're not losing anything for sampling at a higher frequency (smaller pixels). I'm not saying this will always be true. Perhaps past a certain size noise scales at a rate which would make this untrue. But today? We're just not seeing a loss for having more MP.

Also: Did you actually read Clark's article? All the way to the end?
_
When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, times have changed. A decade ago, I would have chosen the camera with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) to get better high ISO and low light performance. Today I would choose the higher megapixel (thus smaller pixels). Modern cameras with high megapixel count, low read noise and low electronics noise allow one to trade resolution and noise. If one wants reasonable dynamic range in a high megapixel camera, the pixels must still be large enough to hold enough photoelectrons to give the dynamic range. Currently (circa 2016), that is not much smaller than 4 micron pixel spacing. For example, the 50 megapixel Canon 5DS(r) fits this criteria, and Nikon's D800 and D810 are in the same league._


----------



## JonSnow (Nov 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Choose whatever _image_ dimensions you like. The results will be the same.
> 
> 
> Also: Did you actually read Clark's article? All the way to the end?
> ...




i have. years ago and a few times since then. i even qouted it in my post.
so did you actually read my post? 

but you are so desperate to look 100% correct that you don´t get my point.

i mentioned downsampling a few times.

when ADC conversion is near perfect downsampling is basically "creating" bigger photosites without negative effects.
the photon noise is then combined into a "bigger bucket", without the negative effects of read noise and ADC introduced noise etc. on each single pixel.

ADC converters are so good now that you won´t see a huge difference between donwsampled images and images from a sensor with bigger photosites.

but nevertheless there still is photon noise difference on a pixel level in the original images....


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 26, 2018)

padam said:


> Seriously, no one seems to be able to get a joke these days.



That's because on the internet there are plenty of people who say ridiculous things in all seriousness. See Poe's law.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 26, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> i mentioned downsampling a few times.



You mentioned it once in the relevant post, and did so in passing.



> but nevertheless there still is photon noise difference on a pixel level in the original images....



I guess it's my turn to ask if you've read my post or if you merely wish to appear correct: *Obsessing over "pixel quality" is missing the forest for the trees.*


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> So you don't think my rumour will gain traction!
> 
> Jack


I heard IT HERE first!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 26, 2018)

Ultimatly, there are only so many photons.

Lets use a pair of imaginary sensors to show the point with easy math. Both sensors are perfect, and both have a perfect A/D circuit to read them. Both sensors cover the same area, one is 10X10 pixels, the other one is 40X40 pixels.

Both sensors are mounted into a camera and are going to take the same picture of a white wall at the same exposure and aperture. Let's say 102,400 photons enter the lens and because our imaginary sensors are both perfect, we get 102,400 electrons. The 10X10 sensor has 100 photosites with 1024 electrons in each one, and this gives us 10 bits of colour depth. The 40x40 sensor has 1,600 photosights with 64 electrons in each one, and that gives us 6 bits of colour depth.

The 10X10 sensor has greater colour depth, but the 40X40 sensor has greater resolution.

However, you can bin the pixels of the 40X40 sensor to recreate the same image as the 10X10 sensor, and end up with the same lower res image at the same colour depth, but you can not go the other way around. The 40X40 image has more information than the 10X10 image. think of it like this, 10X10 X10 bits of depth is 1000 bits of information, while 40X40X6 bits of depth is 9,600 bits of information.

In the real world, it isn't so easy. A/Ds are not perfect, sensors do not have 100% quantum efficiency, and there is a seam on the edges of microlenses so some light is lost there, but it still comes to the same conclusion. Smaller pixels capture less individual cell info than larger pixels but because there are more of them, the overall amount of info for the entire image is greater.


----------



## JoTomOz (Nov 26, 2018)

Surprised no one has talked about the lenses that will be needed to fully realise this kind of resolution. Does this mean all new RF L lenses will be a step above second gen EF L lenses?


----------



## ethanz (Nov 26, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I heard IT HERE first!


Do we have a new HF?


----------



## ethanz (Nov 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Ultimatly, there are only so many photons.
> 
> Lets use a pair of imaginary sensors to show the point with easy math. Both sensors are perfect, and both have a perfect A/D circuit to read them. Both sensors cover the same area, one is 10X10 pixels, the other one is 40X40 pixels.
> 
> ...



Great explanation Don. Now lets see how many Forum Engineers rip into it.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 27, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Do we have a new HF?



---

NOPE! The ORIGINAL HarryFilm is STILL here!

I should also note that it SEEMS my original notes about Canon were CORRECT in it's new focus on high megapixel counts and NEW mirrorless designs. They had better get on with it because a new kid on the block has a Medium Format MONSTER coming out soon which will make Canon's forays a bit of a moot point in the high megapixel count arena if it doesn't offer spectacular features to match!

---

NOW! To address one reason WHY we should have High Megapixel Count cameras of ANY SORT!

When you take a 75 megapixel camera (let's say 10,000 by 7500 pixels) and RESAMPLE that image using a high-quality image resizing algorithm such as Lanczos-3 or Lanczos-5 or Sin-C, you can take advantage of oversampling math as espoused within:

Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

AND

Nyquist Rate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate

which are not just used in their usual Audio Sampling/Recording domains but also used in Still Image resampling and VIDEO recording arenas.

If you average an ENTIRE STILL IMAGE or VIDEO FRAME using a resampling algorithm that samples on a 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7 or 8x8, etc. block-of-pixels and you ENSURE that the DESTINATION still image or video frame widths and heights DIVIDE EVENLY into the source width and height, then your final image quality will have a much higher SUBJECTIVE level of quality due to a "Natural" antialiasing effect brought about by the resampling algorithm. AND RIGHT AFTER you do the image resample of say a 10,000 x 7500 pixel image downto 5000 by 3750 pixels (i.e. exactly half the resolution on each axis), perform an UNSHARP MASK of about 1.0, 1.5 or 2 pixels radius, that function enhances ONLY object edges which now results in a PERCEIVED INCREASE of detail and overall image sharpness.

The key thing on large high megapixel count images is to DOWNSAMPLE them to exactly 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of their original width and height using Lanczos, Sin-C or even Bicubic image resize and then do an UNSHARP MASK filter. The final photo will look absolutely stunning. This downsampling and sharpening is usually done as the LAST STEP after any colour grading and image fx/correction tasks just before final publishing and/or printing.

So that 75 megapixel monster will make some AWESOME website front-page shots and/or bus-stop posters once printed out!

IDEALLY, Canon should INCREASE the physical size of the sensor to a full Large Sensor Medium Format (56mm by 42mm is suggested!) so that the size of each photosite in Microns is kept the same as the 1DxMk2 or at least the 5Dmk4 ...AND.... ensure each photosite is sampled at 32-bits per colour channel (96-bits per RGB pixel) which is THEN downsampled to 16-bits per channel of final colour sample resolution (i.e. 48-bits per RGB pixel). That would preserve light-gathering power and greatly reduce noise at lower light levels!

---

AND I DO RE-ITERATE, that a certain manufacturer IS coming out with just such a Combined Stills/Video camera with Nyquist Sampling/UnSharp Mask and it's coming much sooner than anyone realizes!  ;-) ;-)


Cough! Cough! Look what the cat dragged in from Canon's arch-nemesis SONY !!!

*Sony’s Next Full-Frame Sensor to Offer 60MP, 8K, 16-Bit RAW:*

See link below:
https://petapixel.com/2018/11/26/sonys-next-full-frame-sensor-to-offer-60mp-and-8k-report/

Hmmmmm......I wonder what's coming NEXT down any given manufacturer's pipeline!

WE SHALL SEEEE !

And YES !!! You Heard it HERE FIRST !!!!!!!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 27, 2018)

JoTomOz said:


> Surprised no one has talked about the lenses that will be needed to fully realise this kind of resolution. Does this mean all new RF L lenses will be a step above second gen EF L lenses?


Thats because talking about resolution in terms like that is an entirely specious argument.

Reposted yet again:-

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.


----------



## ethanz (Nov 27, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> NOPE! The ORIGINAL HarryFilm is STILL here!



Harry, do I have the magical ability to summon you? It appears that way.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 27, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Thats because talking about resolution in terms like that is an entirely specious argument.
> 
> Reposted yet again:-
> 
> ...


Another formula is the product of the transfer functions of each block in the system. The conclusion is the same: the total system resolution approaches the weakest link. Improving the strongest link will result in diminishing returns to the system, and improving the weakest link can result in the greatest returns to the system.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 27, 2018)

"...Harry, do I have the magical ability to summon you? It appears that way....."

--

YES! You do....I AM HERE....i am there....I AM EVERYWHERE YOU WANT TO BE !!!!

with the LATEST in Camera Industry Rumours......and I do wish to update you all on a previous one which I think is HOT TO TROT !!!!!!

---

About 4 weeks ago, seven of my executive-suite sources that I have gotten super-duper-secret information from on a more-than-a-few-occassions, AND who are located in major business/import/export centres such as Toronto, New York, London, San Francisco/San Jose, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Berlin have ALL been telling me the same information which YOU here on CanonRumors GET TO HEAR FIRST !!!!!!!!!

Within the LAST THREE MONTHS, Apple Board Members have been stating eloquently within their meetings (with Apple CEO Tim Cook present!) that a corporate looksee and takeover is desired for both adding more technological supremecy to Apple's portfolio AND to basically boost their stock price into a sustainable MORE-THAN-ONE-TRILLION-DOLLAR valuation. With their 240 BILLION DOLLAR CASH HOARD, the THREE big companies Apple is looking at BUYING IN THEIR ENTIRETY for their EXTENSIVE Patent Portfolios IS CANON of Japan, TI (Texas Instruments) of the USA and Vodafone of the UK.

Canon of course has the SECOND LARGEST PATENT PORTFOLIO in the world after IBM ....AND....It is rumoured that a Japanese minister has given TACIT APPROVAL of APPLE buying ALL of Canon. I've heard through the grapevine that literally APPLE is the ONLY foreign company that is considered within Japanese political circles to even be ALLOWED to buy into and/or completely purchase such a major Japanese company! The current stock price premium being discussed is between 56 to 62 Billion Dollars U.S. 

Apple wants Canon's Chip Making systems/expertise, Microcircuit Quality Control systems, OLED, Quantum-Dot and LED display patents, and optics patents. The grapevine is also talking about Super-SIRI enhanced 8k and even 16k television/computer displays using Canon LED/Quantum Dot techonology that will be coming in at 42, 55, 65, 83 and 110 inch sizes for Business and high-end Home use with BUILT-IN fully ENCRYPTED Facetime videophone systems! ....AND....I've heard a custom manufacturing plant is to be built in the State of Utah so those displays will be MADE IN USA --- WOW! THAT is something to write home about! So.....VERY SOON NOW...possibly by next September 2019, Canon Cameras and LENSES may become APPLE CAMERAS AND LENSES !!!!!

Texas Instruments has the 4th largest Digital Signal Processing and SoC (System-on-a-Chip) patents portfolio after NEC, Philips and Intel. That would contribute to Apple's Bionic CPU production capabilities and audio/video/still image processing patents portfolio. The grapevine is that Apple wants to get rid of Intel and COMBINE it's mobile and desktop CPU/GPU's into a SINGLE series of MADE-IN-HOUSE-BY-APPLE processors used for all watches, smartphones, tablets, desktops and OTHER devices. These NEW processors are to have built-in high end GPU's for 8k/16k video display, high-end audio processing and HIGH FRAME RATE 480 fps+ 4K VR using a custom Apple-built 480 frames per second VR visor sending 240 fps video to each eye slightly offset to give super-smooth VR experience! That frame rate (which IS doable on high end CPU's/GPU's at 4K!) would allow Apple to be the PREMIERE SUPPLIER of VR systems in the world! The stock premium that is being bandied about is $25 Billion U.S.

Vodafone Group Plc.....Hmmmmm.....that kinda surprised me when I heard that.....BUT when I did a bit of digging....they own the largest mobile provider in Germany and are HUGE players in the UK, Middle East, South America, South Asia and India giving Apple access to over 2.5 Billion NEW subscribers! NOW that finally makes sense to me! I am also betting that by buying a MAJOR mobile voice and data services provider, I am BETTING TWO BITS that Apple wants to practice in a non-American market so they can get enough experience to finally and EVENTUALLY buy up an American Major Phone Company such as Verizon! If THEY own the wireless pipes, it's only a matter of TIME that iTunes will be the ONLY content player available on those out-of-USA wireless/mobile networks which could add another 80 Billion Dollars PER YEAR in wireless phone/data services revenue to Apple's coffers! That would turn 2018's revenue from $265 Billion to over $345 Billion which is a 30% INCREASE in yearly revenue! YIKES!!! 

So NOW I get WHY Vodafone is being considered as a takeover target by Apple! It would be the HARDEST ONE to bite into though as it's stock premium valuation would be on the order of about 72 to 76 Billion Dollars U.S. Apple Can do it Moneywise! And I would dare say that the extra $80 Billion U.S. in yearly revenue makes Vodafone the most attractive of the takeover targets from an INITIAL financial contribution viewpoint BUT Canon is BEST from a patents portfolio viewpoint which could have all it's technologies used as a springboard for NEW revenue-producing products from Apple.

Apple IS ALWAYS looking at companies to buy and in MY OPINION it will be Vodafone FIRST and then Texas Instruments within a SHORT period of time afterwards! In terms of Apple Buying Canon anytime soon, YES there IS a possibility it will be chosen first because of it's HUGE PATENT PORTFOLIO....but with the sheer number of employees it would have to absorb or spin off into new companies, I'm not quite sure WHAT Apple would do to handle that political hot potato of Apple buying a truly Japanese company as Canon!

Anyways...It's a TOSS-UP ---- who knows...maybe Canon will go for Sigma to get their stacked RGB photosite Foveon sensor technology ...OR... Apple buys Sony to get the Playstation Network AND gain control of major worldwide Image Sensor production! Who Knows???

WE SHALL SEE ....and..... YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST !!!!!!

.


----------



## scrup (Nov 27, 2018)

Da fuk, everytime I hear entry level R, I think what else can they gimp on the camera.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 27, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> A higher resolution sensor will never perform worse than a lower resolution sensor due to diffraction or motion blur. Blur may stand out more when pixel peeping at 100% because the higher resolution file is enlarged more, but it's not actually any worse at the same view/print size.
> 
> Diffraction is also not a brick wall. "Diffraction Limited Aperture" is terrible terminology because it causes people to think of it as a brick wall.



That's true, and I didn't mean it that way, sorry if my posting was mistakable. In general, the image information captured by a e.g. a 35mm sensor is always the same, given the same amount of light and comparable silicon technology, and given a minimum pixel size that fits to the size of the Airy discs caused by a certain aperture. For those not knowing what an Airy disc is: That's the area of a geometrical image point washed out by diffraction, and such a disc contains no useful image information. Now, starting with an aperture in which Airy discs and pixel pitches fit together, and closing it further, those Airy discs grow and overlap more and more pixels. So, now you lose gradually more and more image information captured by a single pixel - the image get's softer and softer on the pixel level. If you e.g. close to f = 14 for classic landscape photography to gain a big depth of field, you just get fat files from your 75 MP monster that include no more useful information than smaller files from a, say, 24 MP camera. Your just need more processor power and disc space for such huge files, and emit more carbon dioxide into earth's atmosphere.

This is the reason why I always would change to medium format cameras if I wanted to make huge prints, because e.g. a 6 x 4,5 sensor with 80 or 100 MP technically makes much more sense.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 27, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "...Harry, do I have the magical ability to summon you? It appears that way....."
> 
> --
> 
> ...



Whoa! And I always think I tend to write too long posts, respect, HarryFilm . You should re-establish French style epic novel writing of the 19th century. Just polish a bit the dramaturgic composition of your posts...


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 27, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Do we have a new HF?


Do you miss him too?


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 27, 2018)

proutprout said:


> Unless it does 8K, no ?


Is proutprout the equivalent of petpet?


----------



## JasonLee (Nov 27, 2018)

Did anyone give it a thought that it would be an iteration what Foveon used to apply on their sensor? 25MP x 3, boomed, you have 75MP.

I sees that it is possible given that Canon have filed the stacked sensor pattern previously.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> think of it like this, 10X10 X10 bits of depth is 1000 bits of information, while 40X40X6 bits of depth is 9,600 bits of information.


That's not completely true. 40X40X6 _needs_ to transfer that much more bits of _data _(unless pixel binning is implemented directly between photocells), but how much extra _information _this extra data contains depends on how much information in the corresponding frequency range (5 to 20 cycles per sensor) actually reached the sensor.


----------



## NKD (Nov 27, 2018)

Great news, will hold onto my 5dsR for another couple of years or until I land a few more large gigs to justify the upgrade.
Love the idea of having focus peaking & drop in rear filters in the new era for tricky lenses like the 17mm TS and Laowa 12mm

One feature I would love to see would be an updated camera remote trigger port. For a wired shutter adjustments, this would help me eliminate a laptop in the field to capture accurate light & dark frames. Bracketing shots can be hit and miss, having to shoot up to 7 to get the right one.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not tracking the people you see as offenders, meaning I don't know who is complaining both ways. But it is so easy to just lose patience and call those who don't share enthusiasm a troll. From what I understand, a troll is somebody who, perversely, posts in a forum for the sole purpose of angering reasonable forum members.
> 
> But what I'm reading in this thread, for the most part, is understandable frustration, skepticism, and concern. You might not agree with such sentiments, but people spending thousands of dollars, sometimes unwisely in terms of their own budgets, get emotional, cynical, and even bitter. If they are posting simply to express their feelings (and I'm seeing quite the surge in newer members since the EOS R was released), are we to just call them all trolls--without even engaging first to find out what their actual issues might be with a Canon releasing a 75 MP before, say, a best in class 40-50 MP? (Maybe Canon has discovered the Holy Grail of sensor tech, who knows?)
> 
> ...



When you look at the "competition" and "wish" Canon made "one" like that ? Why?
I mean is your art suffering so drastically that you can't do with what you have. 
I show my pics to lots of people and none of them pixel peep or say that the dynamic range could be better in that because you only used a 5D mk3. Had it been a Nikon D850 it would have sooooooo much more resolution and DR and less noise etc. If you want all the features of a Nikon then buy one and stop whinging!


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 27, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> When you look at the "competition" and "wish" Canon made "one" like that ? Why?
> I mean is your art suffering so drastically that you can't do with what you have.
> I show my pics to lots of people and none of them pixel peep or say that the dynamic range could be better in that because you only used a 5D mk3. Had it been a Nikon D850 it would have sooooooo much more resolution and DR and less noise etc. If you want all the features of a Nikon then buy one and stop whinging!


I think if my desire for a better camera were unique, mine alone, we'd all still be using Canon 20D's. Or maybe film? And if customers don't want more and better, why are we even discussing 75 MP?

Yes, George Hurrell created great portraits back in the 1930's using 8x10 plates and huge, hot, and heavy lights. I suppose that's what I should be satisfied with, as they created great art.

Never "wish" for better tech? Does this apply to cars, TV's, and computers?

I prefer Canon's service and lenses, and it is in fact the lenses which tie us, to an extent, to a camera brand. So, I'd like to see best in the industry bodies too, even if they are only a little better than what Canon currently offers. I have friends with Nikon D8xx bodies, and the Nikons have numerous extra niceties for photographers in the menus, the ergonomics, and other aspects. Usability, not just image quality, is a factor in deciding whether one body or the other is more attractive to an individual.

Not sure what triggered you here, in your very "first" post (unless this is just a new screen name for you), to claim that I'm "whinging" for hoping the next release of a Canon body is even better than the current very good ones.

Happy holidays!


----------



## ethanz (Nov 27, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Do you miss him too?



Yes, Del Paso, I do. Adds a little excitement to life.


----------



## jmoya (Nov 27, 2018)

please not that many mp. No need. I'm not upgrading to a new pc just to process those massive files. I just got all new macs. Just make a similar 5d r with 5dV layout on the buttons and no 4k crop WITH Dual card slots. I think it would satisfy nearly everyone.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 27, 2018)

I really hope that this is going to be an off-shoot of Canon's main camera lines in the way that the 5DS was. I can go either way as to whether or not I'd want 75mp of resolution. But ultimately, a camera with this high resolution is going to have pretty poor high ISO performance.

My fear is that they will fix some of the control issues of the EOS R and put it into a camera with 75mp. If that's an offshoot of a camera with a more reasonable resolution, fine. But if that's the only model available with more professional controls and features than the EOS R, I'm not going to be happy, because it will undoubtedly sacrifice high ISO performance compared to the EOS R.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 27, 2018)

Obviously a 75mpx monster isn't going to replace lower-resolution models aimed at fast-action. Canon are likely to bring a number of R bodies out within the near future - just see how many different EF mount bodies they have in the lineup right now - there's no reason they can't have a similar number of M and R bodies for mirrorless.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 27, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Obviously a 75mpx monster isn't going to replace lower-resolution models aimed at fast-action. Canon are likely to bring a number of R bodies out within the near future - just see how many different EF mount bodies they have in the lineup right now - there's no reason they can't have a similar number of M and R bodies for mirrorless.



---

Canon NO LONGER HAS ANY CHOICE in the matter!

These are specs from PetaPixel and SonyRumors websites about Sony introducing
a NEW 60 megapixel sensor so if Canon wants to stay in business, they had better
match and even EXCEED the specs noted below:


60 megapixels
16 channels (this is probably used to increase data rate transfer from sensor to system memory to reduce rolling shutter!)
4.6FPS @ 16-bit (Can you say OMG-level beautiful landscapes, astro-phototgraphy and low-light imagery?)
12FPS @ 14-bit ( Good for time lapses!)
8K30P @ 12-bit (Not a bad spec -- I'll take it for high end security video!)
8K60p @ 10-bit (THIS spec is what I was EXPECTING BIG-TIME for new smooth motion 8K video cameras!!!)
4K60p @ 12-bit (Video and still Images will LOOK UTTERLY STUNNING at oversampled DCI 4k at 4:4:4 RAW 12 bit colour!)
FHD300P @ 10-bit (with a bit of software tweaking this can be increased to 8-bit 4:2:0/4:2:2 at 600 frames per second at HD 1080p!)
which speak of a NEW PARADIGM in high-pixel count image sensors which can be deployed to MULTIPLE platforms.

---

...AND...

Sony, being the world's largest producer of Smartphone Image Sensors, has in it's waiting wings, some NEW VERSIONS of current 1/2 inch, 2/3rd inch and even APS-C sensors which are being readied for deployment on SMARTPHONES !!!!! Yes! You HEARD IT HERE FIRST !!!! Not for Mirrorless or DSLR cameras....but rather SMARTPHONE deployments!

After that long ago image leak of a POSSIBLE series of Canon prototype smartphones with a very large sensor (looked like APS-C and 1 Inch sensors), it looks like SONY may hit the market FIRST with a 2/3rds Inch Sensor on a 4K screen Sony xPeria flagship smartphone! And at 50 Megapixels, that smartphone would be technically a Medium Format imaging system in a consumer-level form factor....AND once that happens, you JUST KNOW that Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus won't be far behind with 50+ Megapixel mirrorless cameras AND smartphone-systems!

In fact, .....I AM GOING TO CALL THIS NEAR-FUTURE AS ALMOST A DONE DEAL .... I see BOTH Canon AND Fuji building High-End, Image Connoisseur-specific SMARTPHONES that will have DCI 4k (4096 by 2160 pixels) OLED displays with 50 Megapixel still images AND 8k video (8192 by 4320 pixel) once Sony introduces that new 50 megapixel 2/3rds inch sensor xPeria super-smartphone! On a technical level because of battery issues, I do see 8K video on these smartphones being only 30 fps recording and the full-sensor downsampled 4K video at 60 fps with 120 fps 1080p HD resolutions!

For stills, I am 99.99% SURE it will be 50 Megapixel STILL PHOTOS rather than 75 megapixels or 36 megapixels on these NEW large image sensor smartphones! With modern computational photography algorithms SIMILAR what the Google Pixel-3 is doing which it's Stacked Images software, I EXPECT that image quality will start EATING AWAY at cameras like the Sony A6500 and Canon Rebel and M5/M6 Series and Nikon D500 series cameras!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 27, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> nd even APS-C sensors which are being readied for deployment on SMARTPHONES !!!!! Yes! You HEARD IT HERE FIRST !!!!


no I heard it a lot of times before here. And still don't believe it, not for a moment ...


----------



## JoTomOz (Nov 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Thats because talking about resolution in terms like that is an entirely specious argument.
> 
> Reposted yet again:-
> 
> ...



Perhaps “fully realise” was not the best way to put it. As someone who just went from 21 to 30 megapixels without upgrading my non-L lenses, I understand what you are saying about any lens benefiting from a high res sensor. But resolution wise would you be happy using this alleged new 75mpx camera with my non-L lenses? I’m guessing probably not. To make the most of this kind of resolution, you need lenses that can accomodate it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 28, 2018)

JoTomOz said:


> Perhaps “fully realise” was not the best way to put it. As someone who just went from 21 to 30 megapixels without upgrading my non-L lenses, I understand what you are saying about any lens benefiting from a high res sensor. But resolution wise would you be happy using this alleged new 75mpx camera with my non-L lenses? I’m guessing probably not. To make the most of this kind of resolution, you need lenses that can accomodate it.


I’ll happily use the lenses I have, and they are all EF lenses. I print big and 20mp doesn’t really cut it, 75 would even with comparatively modest lenses, besides the lenses that have ‘feeling’ or a ‘look’ like the 85 f1.2, 50 f1.2 etc are not renowned for their resolution, which I think is, in general, overacted as a metric.

On the occasions I need the resolution I’ll use lenses that can provide it, but I don’t think I own a single lens that I wouldn’t print to 20”x30”, nearly four times the pixels would allow me to go to 24”x36”, the maximum size I go to for prints from a single 135 format capture. Things like digitizing slides etc my FDn 50mm macro and slide duplicator will provide all the resolution I think archiving needs for my modest back catalog.

But yes, one of the design parameters for the R system was the ability to make better quality lenses, and I’m sure Canon will, I’m just not sure I personally will buy into the marketing as I really don’t see the ability to realise the capabilities in actual output. Most of the time people can’t tell the difference between a phone and a EOS/R camera because of the modest outputs used. 

I suppose I’ve just grown out of the need for every new thing and look for the practical value and application of that new technology. I’m not a Luddite, I love WiFi, I love gps, I’d like enough resolution for critical examination of a 24”x36” print.


----------



## warc1 (Nov 28, 2018)

Rockskipper said:


> Better have a fast computer processor for those kind of images, plus lots of memory. And can PS keep up?



I've never understood this concern with high MP cameras. I bought a 5DMKII in 2008 whose 21mp resolution was the highest available in a full frame camera. From the time that camera was new, I had no issues managing and editing images on my PC of the day.

Compared to that 5DMKII, we're now talking about a camera with approximately 3.5 times the resolution and file size. However, in the past ten years, hard drive storage costs have dropped by a factor of 10 and computing power has increased by a factor of 5. The rate of increase in sensor resolution has always significantly lagged the rate of increase in computing power. With each generational increase of sensor resolution there has been a much greater increase in generational computing power.

If PC tech wasn't a constraint when you first got into digital photography, it can't be now. That's unless you believe that only cameras need to be upgraded and never your PC.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 28, 2018)

Now that we're into MF territory here, I hope that Canon realizes that many of us who shoot fashion will be comparing the camera to Hasselblad just because of MB size alone. For me I would prefer a 1DXMKII that shoots 30 "*quality*" MB's with enhanced DR and focusing and still maintains it's 14fps capabilities.


----------



## applecider (Nov 28, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree. I hope that, if Canon's marketing thinks they need to restart the Megapixel race to regain a bold high-tech reputation, they will also release a prosumer R model with a moderate MP count for photographers. Such small pixels on a 35mm sensor don't really make sense, because diffraction blur will limit the range of useful f-stop numbers to well below f/5.6, when closing the aperture further its extremely high resolution will get gradually lost (I know a bit about the inescapable wave nature of light, I am a physicist). So the images get more and more soft on the pixel level with smaller apertures. One can re-sharpen such soft images digitally, of course, but the trade-off is growing artefacts. Once a visual information is lost, it is lost. Btw this is now new finding, you can read about this fact of physics in classic photography textbooks.
> 
> I know somebody who still uses old 12 MP Nikons and produces gorgeous A3 (!!) prints in which on can see every little hair and skin pore. You could sell her prints to people as a result of a 40+ MP camera and they would believe it.




Yes you are right about diffraction limit f stops coming down, an upside of the R system though seems to be the ability to make larger aperture lenses. So maybe you lose two stops of smaller apertures but gain one stop of larger aperature’s. Granted fewer MP would boost the diffraction limit and that is the trade off. The 5D4 is already at 8.6 aperature to begin losing quality to diffraction.


----------



## Grimbald (Nov 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Can you name an ILC body from the last decade with crippled dynamic range?



How about a camera with a similar DR as your 5 year old predecessor? _*Points at 6d mark II*_

I'd rather have 50 or 55 MP, but better image quality at high ISO and DR. But maybe that's were they're heading with the EOS R/5d instead -> Since the 5DSR equivalent gets a huge increase in MP, the 5d line processor might follow torwards ~40MP.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 28, 2018)

Grimbald said:


> How about a camera with a similar DR as your 5 year old predecessor? _*Points at 6d mark II*_


So the 6D is also crippled?


----------



## Jethro (Nov 28, 2018)

JoTomOz said:


> Perhaps “fully realise” was not the best way to put it. As someone who just went from 21 to 30 megapixels without upgrading my non-L lenses, I understand what you are saying about any lens benefiting from a high res sensor. But resolution wise would you be happy using this alleged new 75mpx camera with my non-L lenses? I’m guessing probably not. To make the most of this kind of resolution, you need lenses that can accomodate it.


Yes, and Canon would love to sell you some high quality (very high $) RF mount lenses which I reckon are actively designed for higher (certainly higher than the EOS R) MP sensors.


----------



## Grimbald (Nov 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> So the 6D is also crippled?



No but the 6d Mark II.

Or do you think that the 6d Mark II sensor is great in terms of DR?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 28, 2018)

Grimbald said:


> No but the 6d Mark II.
> 
> Or do you think that the 6d Mark II sensor is great in terms of DR?


I asked for an example of an ILC from the last decade with crippled DR. You cited 6DmkII and, in particular, its similar DR to its predecessor, i.e. 6D.

If one is crippled, and if they’re similar, then both are crippled.

I don’t have an opinion about either. I own neither. However I don’t expect either would limit my photography in any significant way, especially not so much so that I’d call the gear crippled.

I’d also draw a huge amount of space between “great” and “crippled.”


----------



## Grimbald (Nov 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I asked for an example of an ILC from the last decade with crippled DR. You cited 6DmkII and, in particular, its similar DR to its predecessor, i.e. 6D.
> 
> If one is crippled, and if they’re similar, then both are crippled.




Have you ever heard of the concept of time? The 6d sensor is for todays standard not good anymore, but by the time it was released it was great. If you release a sensor that's about the same in terms of DR range 5 years later than yes, it's a crippled sensor. Obviously every sensor of every camera will at one point in time be outdated, but if you are already outdated by the time you release the sensor, despite being capable of delivering a much better product, it's a shitty/crippled sensor.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2018)

Just a lame exaggeration to be ignored.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2018)

warc1 said:


> I've never understood this concern with high MP cameras. I bought a 5DMKII in 2008 whose 21mp resolution was the highest available in a full frame camera. From the time that camera was new, I had no issues managing and editing images on my PC of the day.
> 
> Compared to that 5DMKII, we're now talking about a camera with approximately 3.5 times the resolution and file size. However, in the past ten years, hard drive storage costs have dropped by a factor of 10 and computing power has increased by a factor of 5. The rate of increase in sensor resolution has always significantly lagged the rate of increase in computing power. With each generational increase of sensor resolution there has been a much greater increase in generational computing power.
> 
> If PC tech wasn't a constraint for your old camera, it shouldn't be for your new one. That's unless you believe that only cameras need to be upgraded and never your PC.


Resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels. A 3.5x increase in mpx going from the 5DMkII increases resolution just under two fold.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2018)

Not to mention the equation that relates lens resolution to price but we gladly pay for the modest improvements because they are discernible and make a difference to people who know and care. If you have GAS and cash, why not. You may not be a better photographer but you likely won't be worse.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2018)

applecider said:


> Yes you are right about diffraction limit f stops coming down, an upside of the R system though seems to be the ability to make larger aperture lenses. So maybe you lose two stops of smaller apertures but gain one stop of larger aperature’s. Granted fewer MP would boost the diffraction limit and that is the trade off. The 5D4 is already at 8.6 aperature to begin losing quality to diffraction.


Diffraction is determined by the size of the entrance pupil of the lens, usually the front element, and is a function of just the f-number and the wavelength of light. How does having a larger mount make it practically possible to have a larger front element? It certainly doesn’t help telephotos and you have f/0.95 50mm lenses already.


----------



## Mbell75 (Nov 28, 2018)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> umm how bout 35-45MP Pro EOS R ALL AROUND MODEL with DUAL DIGICS something for us DO-ALL Shooters of fashion,portraits and sports 7-9fps with continuous AF and better full frame 4K video and AF and DUAL CARD SLOTS nobody cares about 75MP



Said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone thinking Canon can compete with the Sony a9 is dreaming. They dont have anywhere near the sensor capabilities to produce a camera like that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2018)

Funny, I thought Canon was already competing with the A9. Or are you saying "Canon is *******"? I guess I'm saying I don't swallow that line, which we've heard endlessly for quite some time. I think various people are buying and will continue to buy various cameras according to their needs. So far no one is *******. Or, maybe you're saying a camera is just a sensor?

Jack


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 28, 2018)

applecider said:


> Yes you are right about diffraction limit f stops coming down, an upside of the R system though seems to be the ability to make larger aperture lenses. So maybe you lose two stops of smaller apertures but gain one stop of larger aperature’s. Granted fewer MP would boost the diffraction limit and that is the trade off. The 5D4 is already at 8.6 aperature to begin losing quality to diffraction.


With my old 5D3 I can see diffraction slightly kicking in at f>=10 (pixel peeping). So I don't lose too much information on the pixel level with this camera when I move to classic landscape settings.

I'd really love if Canon could provide at least some moderate MP bodies with prosumer features for people like me. In fact, there seems to be a market for such cameras, as Sony's A7S series proves. Currently a A7S III is rumored (of course, with videographers as core target). But many people buying higher end cameras are trained like Pavlov's dogs: ring the Monsterpixel bell and they automatically start to drool.

As second best solution, Canon could provide a M- and SRAW technology based on true pixel binning (combining pixels to create a bigger virtual pixel on the sensor level), like Sigma does in some cameras. This would serve both the needs of high MP fans and moderate MP preferring ignorants like me without too many different sensor lines.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> So the 6D is also crippled?


6D was roughly "OK-ish" at launch. 6D Mk. II was crippled at launch already. Compared to market standard at launch, Canon put a shamefully poor sensor into it. And also updated AF system only to the level the original 6D should already have come with.


----------



## Uneternal (Nov 28, 2018)

I'm actually a little bit worried about Canons future. So if we look at former rumors, they said Canon is only releasing 2 more models in 2019 and one of them is going to be an entry-level EOS R. So the other one seems to be this 75MP model which is a successor of the 5DSR and probably optimated for studio work, rather than sports or night photography.
That means we will probably not see a successor of the 5D4 in the R-series soon!
I don't know what are Canon's plans here but IMO they got a good chance of trailing behind Sony next year. Especially if they aren't gonna dump their prices soon. Here in Europe, the R went up on place 2 of the sales rankings, but only for a few weeks of its introduction, now tumbling down to no 12.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I think if my desire for a better camera were unique, mine alone, we'd all still be using Canon 20D's. Or maybe film? And if customers don't want more and better, why are we even discussing 75 MP?
> 
> Yes, George Hurrell created great portraits back in the 1930's using 8x10 plates and huge, hot, and heavy lights. I suppose that's what I should be satisfied with, as they created great art.
> 
> ...



I'm so sorry! I didn't realise I needed your permission to respond to your post. Yes we all start somewhere.
I admit I was bored. However, as a caveat, I have been following CR for many years but decided to make an entrance on your post.
Again you compare the Nikon for having niceties in the menu.
I have been shooting with Canon EOS - Film and Digital - for over thirty (30) years and have never had a problem taking pictures with every model that I have owned.
Why would somebody be compelled to think they are missing out on "extra niceties" in the current Canon line up.
Move to Nikon and Sony! 
I have never ever had a problem taking a photo on a Canon - even without the bells and whistles of the Nikon / Sony niceties - whatever they are?
So it sounds (to me) like you "want what you need" but don't know what that actually is.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 28, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> I'm actually a little bit worried about Canons future. So if we look at former rumors, they said Canon is only releasing 2 more models in 2019 and one of them is going to be an entry-level EOS R. So the other one seems to be this 75MP model which is a successor of the 5DSR and probably optimated for studio work, rather than sports or night photography.
> That means we will probably not see a successor of the 5D4 in the R-series soon!
> I don't know what are Canon's plans here but IMO they got a good chance of trailing behind Sony next year. Especially if they aren't gonna dump their prices soon. Here in Europe, the R went up on place 2 of the sales rankings, but only for a few weeks of its introduction, now tumbling down to no 12.



Why are worried...Canon know what they are doing.
Sit back and relax


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 28, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> I'm so sorry! I didn't realise I needed your permission to respond to your post. Yes we all start somewhere.
> I admit I was bored. However, as a caveat, I have been following CR for many years but decided to make an entrance on your post.
> Again you compare the Nikon for having niceties in the menu.
> I have been shooting with Canon EOS - Film and Digital - for over thirty (30) years and have never had a problem taking pictures with every model that I have owned.
> ...


Whatever your name, thank you for bringing the 30 years of wisdom to the forum to tell other members to jump ship if they discuss Canon gear in the context of other brands. What a refreshing perspective! "Love it or leave it!" Never heard that before! Glad you are so satisfied with your *kit.*


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 28, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> I'm actually a little bit worried about Canons future. So if we look at former rumors, they said Canon is only releasing 2 more models in 2019 and one of them is going to be an entry-level EOS R. So the other one seems to be this 75MP model which is a successor of the 5DSR and probably optimated for studio work, rather than sports or night photography.
> That means we will probably not see a successor of the 5D4 in the R-series soon!
> I don't know what are Canon's plans here but IMO they got a good chance of trailing behind Sony next year. Especially if they aren't gonna dump their prices soon. Here in Europe, the R went up on place 2 of the sales rankings, but only for a few weeks of its introduction, now tumbling down to no 12.



Quit worrying and go out and take some pictures.
The 5DS has been around for 4 years - so due a replacement, which is why the rumors of a replacement are circulating at present.

The 5d4 was only released 2 years ago, so is mid life right now, so a little early for a replacement. If you have a 5D4, then plenty of life left in it surly? It was a shame that Canon didn't simply pack the dual card slots and joystick onto the R and be done with it, but hey ho.

The 'entry level R' is an interesting concept - Canon moving for the mass market rather than niche markets could be a good move for the company though? One assumes that Nikon and Sony are working on their own entry level mirrorless options. Do we know for absoutly certain that this 75MP senor is not destined for the entry level camera?? Call me crazy - but if the high res model is aimed and landscapers and studio work specifically, the camera does not need a lot of bells and whistles. Cut out the high frame rate, IBIS, 4k video modes etc, and put out a camera with '5Ds style' image quality, straightforward interface and lightweight build, and there could be a good market for that.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Whatever your name, thank you for bringing the 30 years of wisdom to the forum to tell other members to jump ship if they discuss Canon gear in the context of other brands. What a refreshing perspective! "Love it or leave it!" Never heard that before! Glad you are so satisfied with your *kit.*



Someone is angry!
I suggest you stick to taking you cat photos with your flawed 6D mkii and leave the adults to taking real photographs with their equally flawed 'other Canon' cameras that subtract all the 'niceties' of the Nikon you aspire to. Oh by the way it's 42 years of wisdom shooting with a camera - with film and digital.
Canon should employ you as the head of their R'n'D department. 
I can see it now....Your / Their, next camera the EOS D850 ....as it has "niceties".

Have a lovely day.
It's been great looking into your creative realm.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels. A 3.5x increase in mpx going from the 5DMkII increases resolution just under two fold.



There are different 'resolutions'. The conventional sensor resolution measured in pixels. So 3.5x increase in mpx will lead to 3.5x increase in resolution in pixels (very trivial).


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 28, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> Someone is angry!
> I suggest you stick to taking you cat photos with your flawed 6D mkii and leave the adults to taking real photographs with their equally flawed 'other Canon' cameras that subtract all the 'niceties' of the Nikon you aspire to. Oh by the way it's 42 years of wisdom shooting with a camera - with film and digital.
> Canon should employ you as the head of their R'n'D department.
> I can see it now....Your / Their, next camera the EOS D850 ....as it has "niceties".
> ...


Sorry, never took a pic of a cat, and only a few of dogs. Not my bag.

Since this is a thread discussing another jump in camera tech, perhaps you could share your thoughts about how 75 MP will help your work, or not? 

No, I've never been a fan boy of any brand I buy, whether surfboards, cars, TV's, or even Canon. As stated many times, as a whole, Canon is the right fit for me, but other brands make advances that would be nice too.

Cheers, old friend!


----------



## padam (Nov 28, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> I'm actually a little bit worried about Canons future. So if we look at former rumors, they said Canon is only releasing 2 more models in 2019 and one of them is going to be an entry-level EOS R. So the other one seems to be this 75MP model which is a successor of the 5DSR and probably optimated for studio work, rather than sports or night photography.
> That means we will probably not see a successor of the 5D4 in the R-series soon!
> I don't know what are Canon's plans here but IMO they got a good chance of trailing behind Sony next year. Especially if they aren't gonna dump their prices soon. Here in Europe, the R went up on place 2 of the sales rankings, but only for a few weeks of its introduction, now tumbling down to no 12.


I think the Pro version is more important for them than a high-megapixel Pro one and they know it, but it will be positioned above of the 5D IV, I don't see them going for anything other than the 1DX II sensor, it is still very competitive for both photo and video(especially with C-Log...), and I think it will have dual processors and a CFast slot as well for 4k60p. If they delay it that means going for a newer generation sensor, but I doubt that.

I don't think they are too worried, their initial pricing is only a bluff and they have the leeway to drop it if needed(they can make a decent profit on those accessories as well), and after that the even cheaper entry-level mirrorless will be competing against Sony models that are much older, therefore lacking in some features and it is harder to equip them with cheap lenses.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 28, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Canon NO LONGER HAS ANY CHOICE in the matter!
> 
> These are specs from PetaPixel and SonyRumors websites about Sony introducing
> a NEW 60 megapixel sensor so if Canon wants to stay in business, they had better
> match and even EXCEED the specs noted below:



Oh Harry, and for a short brief while I thought you had an understanding of business.

Canon haven't been able to match or exceed the specs of Sony sensors for quite a while now, except in autofocus ability with DPAF which still beats out PDAF on Sony.

They don't have to beat it. All they have to do is produce a camera that people want to buy.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Sorry, never took a pic of a cat, and only a few of dogs. Not my bag.
> 
> Since this is a thread discussing another jump in camera tech, perhaps you could share your thoughts about how 75 MP will help your work, or not?
> 
> ...



Oh...75 MP would be great to work with.
The resolution (I should imagine) would be out of this world ( mixed with the right glass)
Any camera manufacturer using 35mm format for sensor size would be aware of the inherent vibration caused by mirror or shutter mechanisms.
Mirrorless is clearly the way to go with such "large" sensors as the vibration can be kept to a minimum.
I doubt if the megapixel race will stop at 70 or 75 (whatever) and in 8 - 10 years time these sensor sizes will seem minuscule.
I am so happy you not a fanboy of any brand. How's that working out for you ?


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 28, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> Canon NO LONGER HAS ANY CHOICE in the matter!
> 
> ...



Oh dear. Canon don't just make cameras and the cameras they make do sell...
Why? Its because they are the Toyota of the camera world. Their products might not be the best compared with other manufacturers (depending on what you define as "best") but they make and sell (thousands of) the most popular cameras on the market because they are reliable and do what they are meant to do.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> There are different 'resolutions'. The conventional sensor resolution measured in pixels. So 3.5x increase in mpx will lead to 3.5x increase in resolution in pixels (very trivial).


Define resolution any way you want, but you are absolutely and categorically wrong about the standard convention about defining resolution. Look at tabulated resolution measurements: they are in line pairs per mm or lines per picture height. Or they are in MTF values scaled to unity. Doubling the number of pixels in a sensor just increases the possible lines per picture height or line pairs per mm by the square root of 2. The resolution of a sensor depends on the linear dimension of each of its pixels, which scales with the square root of the total number.


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 28, 2018)

Sounds like overkill, but why not? It'll be 100 next update. 

And again for 100th time: how about some fresh new TS-E lenses to go with? I'd like a 17mm with filter threads and A TRIPOD FOOT! And a 24mm...

And a 28mm f2.0—small, sharp, w/IS. That would be a perfect walking-around lens…...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> Someone is angry!
> I suggest you stick to taking you cat photos with your flawed 6D mkii and leave the adults to taking real photographs with their equally flawed 'other Canon' cameras that subtract all the 'niceties' of the Nikon you aspire to.



If you can't take great pictures on any DSLR produced in the last ten years by any manufacturer, the problem is not with the camera.

We are not arguing about if one camera is bad or not, we are fixated on degrees of specialized excellence, and in this case, a rather specialized use (ultra-high megapixels) that for those who want/need it is a great thing, while forgetting that this is just one camera and that there will be others that follow with different configurations.

I know we all want to have "our camera" released next, but that just is not going to happen. Wait your turn and be happy for those that this model is aimed at, and while you wait, please enjoy some cat pictures taken with a flawed 6D2


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> If you can't take great pictures on any DSLR produced in the last ten years by any manufacturer, the problem is not with the camera.



Isn't it amusing how these GAS threads always circle back to this! To think I'm now beginning to consider an R version camera. 

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Isn't it amusing how these GAS threads always circle back to this! To think I'm now beginning to consider an R version camera.
> 
> Jack



No Jack, we must resist the GAS. If you give in, I have to give in.


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> View attachment 181786
> View attachment 181782
> View attachment 181783
> View attachment 181784



Those aren't 75MP cat pictures Don. Make em big. Just be careful around that first cat, he looks dangerous. Cute cats


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 28, 2018)

Grimbald said:


> Have you ever heard of the concept of time? The 6d sensor is for todays standard not good anymore, but by the time it was released it was great. If you release a sensor that's about the same in terms of DR range 5 years later than yes, it's a crippled sensor. Obviously every sensor of every camera will at one point in time be outdated, but if you are already outdated by the time you release the sensor, despite being capable of delivering a much better product, it's a shitty/crippled sensor.



_r.v._ *crip·pled*, *crip·pling*, *crip·ples
1. *To cause to lose the use of a limb or limbs.
*2. *To disable, damage, or impair the functioning of: a strike that crippled the factory.

I can’t get behind the philosophy that something which is merely unimproved over time is “crippled.”

It 6D was good enough, then 6D2 is “no better than good enough.”

Could they have used a better sensor? Yah sure probably. But does the dynamic range of the camera (the more appropriate consideration since nobody outside canon likely has sensor-level performance measurements) impair use of the camera in any significant way? Probably not. Ergo, it isn’t crippled.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 28, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> Someone is angry!
> I suggest you stick to taking you cat photos with your flawed 6D mkii and leave the adults to taking real photographs with their equally flawed 'other Canon' cameras that subtract all the 'niceties' of the Nikon you aspire to. Oh by the way it's 42 years of wisdom shooting with a camera - with film and digital.
> Canon should employ you as the head of their R'n'D department.
> I can see it now....Your / Their, next camera the EOS D850 ....as it has "niceties".
> ...


We don't appreciate personal attacks on posters. If you have something of value to say just say it. Otherwise just go back to being an anonymous lurker.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> _r.v._ *crip·pled*, *crip·pling*, *crip·ples
> 1. *To cause to lose the use of a limb or limbs.
> *2. *To disable, damage, or impair the functioning of: a strike that crippled the factory.
> 
> ...


Everything on the 6D2 is better than on the 6D, with the exception of the sensor. Could Canon have made the sensor better? Of course they could have.... Could they have made it better and sold it at the same price? Only Canon knows.... Do they have the manufacturing capacity to have mass produced a better sensor? Only Canon knows....

As someone with a 6D at work and a 6D2 at home, I can confidently state that this is not a "crippled" camera.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 28, 2018)

That's all true, but when we talk about sensors, images, monitors, the conventional notion is just the pixel count or dimensions in pixels. What you've described below is all true, but for resolution as in lines per mm



AlanF said:


> Define resolution any way you want, but you are absolutely and categorically wrong about the standard convention about defining resolution. Look at tabulated resolution measurements: they are in line pairs per mm or lines per picture height. Or they are in MTF values scaled to unity. Doubling the number of pixels in a sensor just increases the possible lines per picture height or line pairs per mm by the square root of 2. The resolution of a sensor depends on the linear dimension of each of its pixels, which scales with the square root of the total number.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's all true, but when we talk about sensors, images, monitors, the conventional notion is just the pixel count or dimensions in pixels. What you've described below is all true, but for resolution as in lines per mm


People do indeed talk about the resolution of a sensor in terms of number of pixels, but they are missing what really determines resolution. Quote from Wikipedia: "_For practical purposes the clarity of the image is decided by its spatial resolution, not the number of pixels in an image. In effect, spatial resolution refers to the number of independent pixel values per unit length._" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
It's the spatial resolution that governs my choice of lens and sensor, and I know that doubling the number of pixels increases the resolution of my images by up to 1.414 times and not two times.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2018)

ethanz said:


> No Jack, we must resist the GAS. If you give in, I have to give in.



I'd like to hear what it is you'd like out of a newer R - are you looking for 1DX2 level features? Oh how I hate going backwards on features.

Jack


----------



## applecider (Nov 28, 2018)

So off topic a little,...

Two members one who wanted a 50mm lens and another whose title suggests that he studies brains have been missing post wise since mid September anyone know why?
Picked this thread to ask as it is active.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 28, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> Oh dear. Canon don't just make cameras and the cameras they make do sell...
> Why? Its because they are the Toyota of the camera world. Their products might not be the best compared with other manufacturers (depending on what you define as "best") but they make and sell (thousands of) the most popular cameras on the market because they are reliable and do what they are meant to do.



===

I get that! Heck the company I do work for has like 40 Canon C700's, about 50 of the Canon C500 and C300's Mk2/1's, 20 C200s, 20 C100's, multiple 1DxMk2's, 1Dc's, Many 5D Mk4 and 3's, 5DS/R's, M5's, Canon 4 Million ISO Super-low-light nightvision cameras, Powershots and only about a few million dollars of Canon L-series Still and Cinema Lenses in addition to all the Reds, Alexas, High Speed Phantom Visions, Panasonic Shoulder-mount and Cinema camera, Sony F65/F55/Venice/XDcam Cinema and Pro Broadcast cameras and Canon/Sigma/Zeiss/Arri/Leica/Schneider/Cooke lenses etc we have in our inventory. We keep A LOT of camera companies in business AND WE ARE NOT EVEN A RENTAL HOUSE --- That's just for our internal industrial imaging needs!!! THAT SAID, if another company (AND THEY ARE!) is coming out with some higher resolution, higher frame rates, larger colour depth or better dynamic range camera system then WE WILL BUY IT!

Canon sells a lot of consumer, prosumer and pro still cameras and cinema cameras because in short that DPAF IS "DA SCHIZZ" (i.e. supreme best of best!) for still photo and video autofocus systems AND also to be completely fair some, has some of the BEST MENU systems out there making their cameras very easy to use and ergonomic for pro and consumer uses. ....AND..... their weather sealing on the high end gear is FANTASTIC!

....AGAIN THOUGH.....

Sony is catching up FAST in all those areas and since there are some NEW'ish players coming into the higher end combined Stills/Video gear arena, Canon IS DOOOOOOOOOMED !!!!! DOOOOOOMED I TELL YOU !!!!!! UTTERLY DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED if they don't shape up and get into faster lenses at GREAT PRICES, higher megapixel 4:4:4 RAW and JPEG-2000 16-bits-per-channel stills (i.e. 100+ mp) at Full Frame and MF sensor sizes WITH GLOBAL SHUTTER AND DCI 4k/8k 16-bits per colour channel (48-bit RGB pixels) video at 60 fps!!!

Those systems are RIGHT ON THE CUSP of being introduced WITH great lenses at price points that will DEFINITELY eat into Canon's marketshare!


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 28, 2018)

applecider said:


> So off topic a little,...
> 
> Two members one who wanted a 50mm lens and another whose title suggests that he studies brains have been missing post wise since mid September anyone know why?



---

Hmm true....I haven't seen NeuroAnatomist's posting in quite a while...maybe he's doing a research fellowship or is on sabbatical which takes up all his time...I don't know either!

Brains! I want BRAINS!!! Where are more brains......aaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! Eaten by Zombies perhaps?


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 28, 2018)

applecider said:


> So off topic a little,...
> 
> Two members one who wanted a 50mm lens and another whose title suggests that he studies brains have been missing post wise since mid September anyone know why?
> Picked this thread to ask as it is active.



I'd like to think our 50mm-focused friend has sequestered himself with the ER 50mm f/1.2 and is in such unalloyed bliss that he's in danger of asphyxiation.

(Yes, yes, I know he has odd tastes, and would much prefer something small, light, and just better than the old 1.4.)


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2018)

applecider said:


> So off topic a little,...
> 
> Two members one who wanted a 50mm lens and another whose title suggests that he studies brains have been missing post wise since mid September anyone know why?
> Picked this thread to ask as it is active.



Neuro is doing ok, he has just been busy. I do like Harry's idea that a zombie ate them though.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> People do indeed talk about the resolution of a sensor in terms of number of pixels, but they are missing what really determines resolution. Quote from Wikipedia: "_For practical purposes the clarity of the image is decided by its spatial resolution, not the number of pixels in an image. In effect, spatial resolution refers to the number of independent pixel values per unit length._" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
> It's the spatial resolution that governs my choice of lens and sensor, and I know that doubling the number of pixels increases the resolution of my images by up to 1.414 times and not two times.



That's all true Alan, I'm well aware of the math behind it, note however the spatial resolution makes sense only when we take the whole system into account, i.e. camera+lens. In most cases, the lens is the limiting factor. Doubling the pixel count may not improve the actual spatial resolution by 1.414, there may be no improvement at all depending on the lens(es) you use. I wonder how many Canon lenses are able to resolve all actual 30Mp of 5DMkIV, for example.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I know we all want to have "our camera" released next, but that just is not going to happen. Wait your turn and be happy for those that this model is aimed at, and while you wait, please enjoy some cat pictures taken with a flawed 6D2



To be honest, I think 6DII is a great camera and your cat pictures are nice, but they don't really show 6dII advantages, same pictures could've been taken on a good phone, micro 4/3 or a crop camera. People will not think "wow, and those were taken with 6DII? wow..."


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> To be honest, I think 6DII is a great camera and your cat pictures are nice, but they don't really show 6dII advantages, same pictures could've been taken on a good phone, micro 4/3 or a crop camera. People will not think "wow, and those were taken with 6DII? wow..."


I agree. Just about any camera can be used. A 75 megapixel camera is moving towards more specialized use, and in the right hands and conditions should be able to do much better than a general purpose camera like the 6D2.

PS, here are some phone pictures


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 29, 2018)

CanonWatch denies this and says next camera will be closer to 50MP, a figure I'm much more inclined to believe. I rate this as CR0.1.

If they rehash 5D4 sensor tech can we expect 1fps with tracking?


----------



## SereneSpeed (Nov 29, 2018)

I'm thinking this is going to be a dual camera release. Like Nikon Z6 Z7 release meets the 5DS 5DSr release... i.e. Canon will release a 75mpix monster AND a ~35~45mpix all-purpose (PRO) camera. Canon already used the current 5D body for the 5DS series, so why not do the same sort of thing again, and reach both markets at the same time?

I can think of plenty of ways this could actually increase Canon's profitability. Mainly, shared R&D on the new platform. Also, not a whole lot of stepping on their own toes - Because lets be honest, if the mpix are HUGE (75+), we're talking niche. I love the sound of that, but I don't want astronomical shutter speeds, all new glass, and a new computer/set of hard drives, just to upgrade my camera.

I'm sure we all believe Canon has been working on a 'new mirrorless 5D series' camera. The 5D series is incredibly popular. They've probably been working on it for a long time. And now they kill the 5Ds series DSLR in favor of a mirrorless version... Seems the best wat to do that would be to piggyback on the already in development prosumer/pro/5 series mirrorless, no?

Just a humble prediction, based on nothing...


----------



## stevelee (Nov 29, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> To be honest, I think 6DII is a great camera and your cat pictures are nice, but they don't really show 6dII advantages, same pictures could've been taken on a good phone, micro 4/3 or a crop camera. People will not think "wow, and those were taken with 6DII? wow..."


Think how detailed the whiskers could be from a 75MP camera!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's all true Alan, I'm well aware of the math behind it, note however the spatial resolution makes sense only when we take the whole system into account, i.e. camera+lens. In most cases, the lens is the limiting factor. Doubling the pixel count may not improve the actual spatial resolution by 1.414, there may be no improvement at all depending on the lens(es) you use. I wonder how many Canon lenses are able to resolve all actual 30Mp of 5DMkIV, for example.


Check the recent resolution tests by photozone.de (opticallimits.com). They now routinely do Canon FF MTFs on both a 5DSR and 21 mpx. Even an f/4 zoom is getting close to the extra 50% resolution http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1047-canon70200f4is2?start=1 The same is more true for the best wide aperture primes and to a good extent Even for the softer 150-600mm of lower aperture where diffraction is coming into play.
The cameras are still well within the sensor being the limiting factor for resolution, and not the lens,


----------



## addola (Nov 29, 2018)

This depends on the sales of the current 5Ds & 5DsR. If it's not selling like hot cakes, then why introduce 75MP camera now? I am not against the idea, since high resolution has it's market, and Canon would eventually release the 5Ds/5DsR successors. 

If I was Canon, I would focus more on bodies to compete with Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, & Fujifilm. So, I'd expect more of cameras towards high fps burst, and hybrid shooters (picture/video) than high megapixel.


----------



## Talys (Nov 29, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling? I don't think it is.



Having used a Nikon D850 for about a thousand shots (couple of half days), I really like the body. I don't think it's trolling at to want some of the D850 stuff. I too, wish that Canon had some of those features in a 5D series DSLR. On the other hand, I like some of the things that Canon does uniquely as well. I could just as easily ask, why can't Nikon (or Sony) put a flippy screen and DPAF into a DSLR, for instance? Why can't Nikon (or Sony) have tethering software that doesn't totally suck? Why can't Sony make a corded trigger that isn't a water/weather nightmare? Why does Sony have to make such a complicated, fragile, POS flash connector?

You get the idea. Anyways, having given the 6D2, 5D4, D850, A7R3, EOS R all a very fair shot, I have to say that at this very moment, the 6D2 is still my go to camera -- or an 80D -- because of the flippy screen and the remote shooting functions. I still prefer them over EOS R because a lot of my photography involves a lot of artificial lighting. My priorities aren't any more important than anyone else's though, and if someone else prefers the D850 or A7R3, all the power to them. Everyone should buy what they like, considering that they need. Probably, any of the cameras that are thousands of dollars, like you're talking about, are plenty capable to do any required task, but some cameras may produce slightly better results, or, importantly, do the task a more easily.

So, it's not trolling to want Canon to do some other good stuff that other camera manufacturers do. But I think it is unrealistic to want Canon -- _or any other company_ -- to be at least as good at everything as everyone else while being superior in some ways. Just think about it. If that were so. Canon wouldn't have 50% of the market share... they'd have 100% of it.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 29, 2018)

@Talys: Good summary of the situation on the camera market (and maybe a lot other markets).

I have a hate-love-relationship to my Canon equipment but at the end it is to learn a camera / a system to get the images you want and while camera A has deficits here and camera B has it there ... at the end for ME it was the set of ~10 lenses which help me to stay with Canon. While not beeing 10 big whites they have been expensive enough and for some technical shooting as teacher, landscape/macro/nature photography and a little bit from other fields I do not need always the latest tech.

My last acquisitions are M50 + EF-M 32 and both together make a very profound camera which is easy to use, makes what I want and is very easy to carry around. It is good for 1m x 1.5m prints if I have done everything right but ... how many prints do I have of that size: close to zero!
So this entry level amateur camera with a good lens works for me who likes excellent IQ and at least good ergonomics.

If I would like to sell landscapes for 2x3m prints I would be happy to have an EOS M50Rs with an RF xyz mm 2.0 IS and I think it would be wise to produce such a camera. (With dual card slots, which are essential for such a large number of customers


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 29, 2018)

addola said:


> This depends on the sales of the current 5Ds & 5DsR. If it's not selling like hot cakes, then why introduce 75MP camera now? I am not against the idea, since high resolution has it's market, and Canon would eventually release the 5Ds/5DsR successors.
> *
> If I was Canon, I would focus more on bodies to compete with Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, & Fujifilm. So, I'd expect more of cameras towards high fps burst, and hybrid shooters (picture/video) than high megapixel.*



But what if Canon cannot compete? - I think that's the case in terms of frame rate due to the DPAF architecture and maybe some patents which avoid to make the sensor itself more "intelligent"!
If you cannot compete in the same field maybe it is a good idea to put effort in a field there DPAF is great and in my opinion DPAF has a unique feature: It is fast AND precise at the same time - not the fastest but maybe the AF system with the highest hit rate. This is essential for high res imagery.
Maybe they have to wait two or three years to use ideas that are then no longer patented? Maybe the same for IBIS?

If memory serves well Canon made (still makes?) the most money with office products, they sell semiconductor production machines, have medical products. Than there is the market for "Otto Normalverbraucher" market (Joe Citizen is maybe the equivalent) which makes lots of profit. And than there are those with the big whites who are important for advertising but maybe Canon has less profit on a 2.8 300 than on 5 low end powershots...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Check the recent resolution tests by photozone.de (opticallimits.com). They now routinely do Canon FF MTFs on both a 5DSR and 21 mpx. Even an f/4 zoom is getting close to the extra 50% resolution http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1047-canon70200f4is2?start=1 The same is more true for the best wide aperture primes and to a good extent Even for the softer 150-600mm of lower aperture where diffraction is coming into play.
> The cameras are still well within the sensor being the limiting factor for resolution, and not the lens,



Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
50Mp gives 4942
21Mp gives 3476
That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
> 50Mp gives 4942
> 21Mp gives 3476
> That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.





Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
> 50Mp gives 4942
> 21Mp gives 3476
> That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.


 
The overall MTF of the sensor plus lens is a combination of the MTF value of the lens and and the MTF of the sensor. At one extreme, if the lens was very poor and the sensor of very high resolution, then the low MTF of the lens would be the limiting factor and increasing the resolution of the sensor would not increase the overall MTF. Conversely, if the lens outresolves the sensor, then increasing the resolution of the sensor will increase the overall MTF. In practice, for current sensors and lenses, the lenses are usually outresolving the sensors but both their MTFs make some contribution to the overall MTF. Here, in the example you quoted, there is a very significant increase in overall MTF on going from 21 mpx to 50mpx - if the lens were limiting, there would be no increase in MTF resolution whatsoever, but there is. The precise quantification is not as simple as your calculation as there are other factors coming in such as the effect of the Bayer grid and you won 't see the full effects of the increase because f/5.6 is close to the DLA of the 5DSR. 

The interpretation of those photozone data is quite clear, there is a large increase in MTF on going from 21 to 50 mpx showing that sensor is largely the limiting factor but you don't expect the full increase because the resolution of the lens is beginning to intrude.

But, you also got the calculation wrong. The 21 mpx sensor has 6.4 µ pixels, the 50.6 has 4.14 and so the expected increase in spatial resolution is 6.4/4.14 = 1.54. That is not much more than the 1.42 measured.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 29, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> We don't appreciate personal attacks on posters. If you have something of value to say just say it. Otherwise just go back to being an anonymous lurker.



Nothing anonymous. The whole thread is about 75mp and CANON providing a means to convert these mp to our perspective artform.
One would be totally naive to even think that Canon or any other manufacturer would give "everything ( including niceties) in a single budget bundle, without realizing what the bigger game plan is does show immaturity within the persons post. 
75 mp might seem excessive to some and really " who cares" what others think. I know I don't "wish" Canon would do this or that seeing as Nikon had it. Big Picture see Hasselblad! 
Canon sell great gear and with every new gen comes advantages and disadvantages but overall the tools rely on the tradesman! I will make 75 mp work for me


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2018)

Don't need it. Somebody told me that my 20mp M4/3 camera puts the same number of pixels on target as an 80mp FF camera. Now that I know that I am hoping Canon will make a system with a 1/2 M43 sensor. I'll then have the equivalent of a 160mp monster! Smaller, lighter, less expensive snd millions are waiting for it.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't need it. Somebody told me that my 20mp M4/3 camera puts the same number of pixels on target as an 80mp FF camera. Now that I know that I am hoping Canon will make a system with a 1/2 M43 sensor. I'll then have the equivalent of a 160mp monster! Smaller, lighter, less expensive snd millions are waiting for it.


An image filling a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor will have 20 mpx on target. The same image filling an 80 mpx FF sensor will have 80 mpx on target. 

Your "somebody" is either numerically challenged or he/she meant something different. Maybe, it's that a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor has the same size of pixels as an 80 mpx FF. That means, though, there is no point in getting a 20 mpx M4/3 to gain extra resolution over a 80 mpx FF as the FF will have exactly the same resolving power with the same focal length of lens and twice the field of view as well as all of the advantages of FF. This isn't making a point for the sake of it - I went through the arguments of getting an Olympus OM-1 to gain extra reach with telephotos and did the calculations that it had hardly any edge over a 5DSR in resolution, and didn't have the range of fantastic Canon telephoto lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> An image filling a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor will have 20 mpx on target. The same image filling an 80 mpx FF sensor will have 80 mpx on target.
> 
> Your "somebody" is either numerically challenged or he/she meant something different. Maybe, it's that a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor has the same size of pixels as an 80 mpx FF. That means, though, there is no point in getting a 20 mpx M4/3 to gain extra resolution over a 80 mpx FF as the FF will have exactly the same resolving power with the same focal length of lens and twice the field of view as well as all of the advantages of FF. This isn't making a point for the sake of it - I went through the arguments of getting an Olympus OM-1 to gain extra reach with telephotos and did the calculations that it had hardly any edge over a 5DSR in resolution, and didn't have the range of fantastic Canon telephoto lenses.


Yup!


----------



## Mediabug (Nov 29, 2018)

Instead of jamming more pixels that are increasing insensitive to dynamic light range. Lets increase the overall dynamic range so that the spread from black to white has a lot more defined steps. Wow then we would see images that come closer to what the eye can see. It has been a long time since the true dynamic range of the cameras has increased to where it improves the image. But I guess if you so wrapped up in the PIXEL race you would ignore the area that could improve images significantly. I think with not a lot of effort a sensor with 36 bits of resolution could be produced.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 29, 2018)

Mediabug said:


> Lets increase the overall dynamic range so that the spread from black to white has a lot more defined steps.



Increasing dynamic range and increasing intermediate levels are different things.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 29, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not tracking the people you see as offenders, meaning I don't know who is complaining both ways. But it is so easy to just lose patience and call those who don't share enthusiasm a troll. From what I understand, a troll is somebody who, perversely, posts in a forum for the sole purpose of angering reasonable forum members.
> 
> But what I'm reading in this thread, for the most part, is understandable frustration, skepticism, and concern. You might not agree with such sentiments, but people spending thousands of dollars, sometimes unwisely in terms of their own budgets, get emotional, cynical, and even bitter. If they are posting simply to express their feelings (and I'm seeing quite the surge in newer members since the EOS R was released), are we to just call them all trolls--without even engaging first to find out what their actual issues might be with a Canon releasing a 75 MP before, say, a best in class 40-50 MP? (Maybe Canon has discovered the Holy Grail of sensor tech, who knows?)
> 
> ...



A well thought out response. I'm sorry that you took my comment so seriously. My point is merely that, no matter what Canon does, people complain. If you think that is what this forum is meant for, that's perfectly OK. I don't think that is what this forum (or any forum) is meant for and the constant complaining just makes people look ridiculous. My comment was meant as a generalization, nothing more.

Another point. When you ask, "Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling?" - no that is not trolling, but like most comments here, it is a rather meaningless question. "As good" - what is that supposed to mean? It is just a generalization meant to put down Canon in perhaps a more subtle way. Now, if you are saying that the Nikon is better than the Canon IN EVERY WAY, then your statement means something. Otherwise, you probably should be more specific. Do you mean the sensor DR? Noise? Color? Ergonomics? Touch screen? AF? 

See what I mean?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 29, 2018)

This is intriguing but as I see it, as much as I like to pixel peep and as much as I appreciate Alan's higher resolution images when they are cropped and show significant detail, my reality is this. Presently virtually no one I share photos with perceives they aren't super (assuming I have indeed taken care of the human aspects well). My audience is not made up of very many "Alans". If it were I'd be well aware of various failings.

At the moment, I do not print to huge sizes but if I did my perspective would change significantly - I'd be nuts about whatever gave me more resolution, both lens and sensor. I love one newer hospital where very large prints are on display but you can see the lack of resolution at closer viewing distances. 

I do find myself FL limited quite often but suspect that my 400 X2 of L level glass is giving me close to an optimal old codger hand held experience (more than adequate physical exercise) so, as Alan has done, moving to a higher MP camera could benefit me and a second camera is on the horizon, probably in the R realm.

However, since making my choice of a 1DX2 with only 20 MP and after shooting with a 1D2 and a 1D4, I have come to realize that I simply love some of the 1 level features; who wouldn't. I dislike the somewhat excessive dimensions but mostly it's the weight. I'm impressed with how much sharpening can be done and how good higher ISO images are and I'm often forced into higher ISOs by fast shutter speeds with outdoor lighting. I love the video quality in spite of file size and so forth.

Which brings me to the point. I could have said it with out all this bla bla bla. We are still faced with trade offs. By switching cameras within brand or outside of Canon we are still faced with trade offs and some of them relate to physics and will remain. I can choose to be perpetually frustrated by perceived limitations to my photographic reality and constantly unhappy OR I can pinch myself in disbelief that I have equipment that far exceeds anything I could have dreamed of only a few years ago. One caveat; I'm not a pro in competition making money off this activity.

IOW, I can look at my plate or look across the isle at another person's plate or look at the plate of some poor refugee on the TV and choose to be dissatisfied or exceptionally thankful and blessed. I choose the latter for myself. Other folk have different perspectives and realities and that's fine.

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Nov 29, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> This is intriguing but as I see it, as much as I like to pixel peep and as much as I appreciate Alan's higher resolution images when they are cropped and show significant detail, my reality is this. Presently virtually no one I share photos with perceives they aren't super (assuming I have indeed taken care of the human aspects well). My audience is not made up of very many "Alans". If it were I'd be well aware of various failings.
> 
> At the moment, I do not print to huge sizes but if I did my perspective would change significantly - I'd be nuts about whatever gave me more resolution, both lens and sensor. I love one newer hospital where very large prints are on display but you can see the lack of resolution at closer viewing distances.
> 
> ...



TL;DR You're a fan boy 

jk


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 29, 2018)

I'm just a happy camper, counting my blessings. If more comes, great, otherwise life is good. I'm a fanboy of all the brands! 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm just a happy camper, counting my blessings. If more comes, great, otherwise life is good. I'm a fanboy of all the brands!
> 
> Jack


I'm the same. I think Canon has the best glass and ergonomics, that Sony has the best sensors, that Panasonic is the most innovative, that Olympus is the most portable, and that Nikon makes the best P/S and bridge cameras. Right now, I sit in the Canon, Oly, and Nikon camps and they are all good!

I would love to see a camera combining all the best from everyone, but I also recognize that some desires are conflicting, such as the desire for low light ability (need FF cameras and big fast lenses) and portability (an Oly and a F6.3 lens). This is why we have such a huge amount of variation out there.....


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I'm the same. I think Canon has the best glass and ergonomics, that Sony has the best sensors, that Panasonic is the most innovative, that Olympus is the most portable, and that Nikon makes the best P/S and bridge cameras. Right now, I sit in the Canon, Oly, and Nikon camps and they are all good!
> 
> I would love to see a camera combining all the best from everyone, but I also recognize that some desires are conflicting, such as the desire for low light ability (need FF cameras and big fast lenses) and portability (an Oly and a F6.3 lens). This is why we have such a huge amount of variation out there.....


The best "bridge" camera by a country mile, or maybe 10, is the Sony RX10IV. Its 24-600mm equivalent lens is simply incredible - it resolves at 600mm as well as does my 100-400mm II on my 5DIV and is really, really sharp at 24mm. And, it has the A9's AF system and can AF and AE at 24 fps in continuous AF mode. It is also about the same size as a 5D and is nice to hold.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> But, you also got the calculation wrong. The 21 mpx sensor has 6.4 µ pixels, the 50.6 has 4.14 and so the expected increase in spatial resolution is 6.4/4.14 = 1.54. That is not much more than the 1.42 measured.


I used your own formula, i.e. when we double the number of pixels, the resolution gets multiplied by the square root of 2. So the factor is sqrt(2)/2.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

I just love the extra reach and detail the 5DSR gives me with my lenses. I have just downloaded and processed this pair taken with the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR of a yellow-billed kite on our safari. The 5DSR focusses very quickly in AI Servo as you track. The bare 400mm lens on the 5DIV gives similar reach to a 560mm on the 5DIV but the wider field of view makes BIF easier to track frame.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I used your own formula, i.e. when we double the number of pixels, the resolution gets multiplied by the square root of 2. So the factor is sqrt(2)/2.


If you used my formula, you misapplied it. I wrote that "The 21 mpx sensor has 6.4 µ pixels, the 50.6 has 4.14 and so the expected increase in spatial resolution is 6.4/4.14 = 1.54."
My formula, which is simply that spatial resolution scales as the sqrt of the pixels per same size sensor, gives the same result within rounding errors: the expected increase is sqrt(50.6/21) = 1.55.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The best "bridge" camera by a country mile, or maybe 10, is the Sony RX10IV. Its 24-600mm equivalent lens is simply incredible - it resolves at 600mm as well as does my 100-400mm II on my 5DIV and is really, really sharp at 24mm. And, it has the A9's AF system and can AF and AE at 24 fps in continuous AF mode. It is also about the same size as a 5D and is nice to hold.


Just looked at the specs... WOW!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> If you used my formula, you misapplied it. I wrote that "The 21 mpx sensor has 6.4 µ pixels, the 50.6 has 4.14 and so the expected increase in spatial resolution is 6.4/4.14 = 1.54."
> My formula, which is simply that spatial resolution scales as the sqrt of the pixels per same size sensor, gives the same result within rounding errors: the expected increase is sqrt(50.6/21) = 1.55.



Yeah I probably misread it. Yes given pixel sizes p1 and p2, and corresponding megapixel counts M1 and M2, pixel size ratio p1/p2 = sqrt(M2/M1)


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I just love the extra reach and detail the 5DSR gives me with my lenses. I have just downloaded and processed this pair taken with the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR of a yellow-billed kite on our safari. The 5DSR focusses very quickly in AI Servo as you track. The bare 400mm lens on the 5DIV gives similar reach to a 560mm on the 5DIV but the wider field of view makes BIF easier to track frame.



I AM VERY VERY IMPRESSED by these Raptor photos....This is TRULY what photography is all about!

Reduce your highlights by 20% to get your blue sky and clouds back, boost shadows by 20% to show more detail on and under the wings, and add a tad more saturation and contrast and then print out at 24 by 24 inches on your Canon or Epson wide-printer using the 2400 dpi setting using Error Diffusion and set the colour rendering to Perceptural-based Colour Render (to make your image resemble what's in the monitor -- Make sure you have the proper colour-matching drivers for your wide printer installed on your computer). Use a EITHER a high-clay content glossy photo paper OR use a matte/semi-gloss PHOTO-PAPER and watch just how good this print will look when framed! If you print on actual Canvas at 48 by 48 inches, the error diffusion will make it look like a photo-realist painting AND in my opinion, is actually very sellable at an art show for some premium prices.

KUDOS and GOOD JOB on these SPECTACULAR photos!


----------



## bokehmon22 (Nov 30, 2018)

I'm sure this camera will be nice for some people but Sony 16 bit sensor is calling for me. No more bracketing would be a game changer for me


----------



## derekbez (Nov 30, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So, how would they name it?
> 
> EOS RDs? RDs R? Rs? RsR? RR?


This would be the RD2. The next iteration would be the R2D2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 30, 2018)

derekbez said:


> This would be the RD2. The next iteration would be the R2D2.


You went there. Thanks! Good chuckle with coffee!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> I AM VERY VERY IMPRESSED by these Raptor photos....This is TRULY what photography is all about!
> 
> Reduce your highlights by 20% to get your blue sky and clouds back, boost shadows by 20% to show more detail on and under the wings, and add a tad more saturation and contrast and then print out at 24 by 24 inches on your Canon or Epson wide-printer using the 2400 dpi setting using Error Diffusion and set the colour rendering to Perceptural-based Colour Render (to make your image resemble what's in the monitor -- Make sure you have the proper colour-matching drivers for your wide printer installed on your computer). Use a EITHER a high-clay content glossy photo paper OR use a matte/semi-gloss PHOTO-PAPER and watch just how good this print will look when framed! If you print on actual Canvas at 48 by 48 inches, the error diffusion will make it look like a photo-realist painting AND in my opinion, is actually very sellable at an art show for some premium prices.
> 
> KUDOS and GOOD JOB on these SPECTACULAR photos!


Thanks Harry and your advice on processing.


----------



## VINESCAM1507 (Nov 30, 2018)

RTARD would suit the"wishers" who need soooooo much more than whats on offer and will 'tell' Canon that they "need" moreof what 'Nikon' are doing - so right" because their cat pictures have crappy dynamic range


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 30, 2018)

VINESCAM1507 said:


> RTARD would suit the"wishers" who need soooooo much more than whats on offer and will 'tell' Canon that they "need" moreof what 'Nikon' are doing - so right" because their cat pictures have crappy dynamic range


Please be nice and not call people names, or we will be forced to send the kitty of Christmas Cheer to visit you.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 30, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> I'm sure this camera will be nice for some people but Sony 16 bit sensor is calling for me. No more bracketing would be a game changer for me


More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 30, 2018)

CR for humour! Thanks Don.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm just a happy camper, counting my blessings. If more comes, great, otherwise life is good. I'm a fanboy of all the brands!
> 
> Jack


You do follow CR because of its humour!


----------



## stevelee (Nov 30, 2018)

Speaking of which, my pie analogy reminds me of the guy who told the waiter that he wanted his pizza cut into six pieces rather than eight, since he needed to cut down on his eating.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 30, 2018)

"....More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger....."

---

YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON IT'S GLARING HEAD !!!!!

It's almost all about PHOTOSITE SIZE IN MICRONS!!!

The Canon 1DxMk2 is about 6.3 or 6.4 microns so it's image quality in terms of noise and low light capability is going to be pretty darn good! The Sony A7s2 has about an 11 to 12 micron photosite size, so IT'S low light ability is and DOES BLOW AWAY the 1DxMk2's! Now what SHOULD BE DONE in the camera industry, is that that manufacturers need to start getting into Medium Format sensor sizes STARTING at 56mm by 42mm at a MINIMUM of 30 megapixels (13.9 microns per photosite) up to 50 megapixels (6.8 microns per photosite) so you KEEP the high end low-light gathering power of the Canon 1DxMk1 and Sony A7s2 BUT get the increased resolution we so very much want these days. Lenses would be easier AND CHEAPER to manufacture AND we would get that beautiful Bokeh inherent to large image sensors!

IDEALLY, we should be moving into aspect ratio agnostic 70mm by 55mm sensors at 8192 by 6144 pixel image size (50.3 megapixels) which would give us an 8.5 micron photosite size which is probably what 99.9997 percent of us will find perfect-enough for BOTH day and night photography! That 70mm x 55mm and 4:3 aspect ratio can be cropped on just the vertical axis to ANY other aspect ratio we need for stills (3:2 and 4:3) and video (16:9 broadcast video or Cinema DCI 1.89:1). With that 50 megapixel we can EASILY use it for almost any stills and video purpose we want with enough LOW-NOISE and HIGH-END LIGHT GATHERING POWER that our imagery will be good for DECADES to come!

Soooooo, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One, etc how about getting 70mm by 55mm sensors at 8092 x 6144 pixels (4:3) onto YOUR cameras !!!!!

BRING IT ON BAAAAAABBEEEEEEEE !!!!!


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 1, 2018)

I'm waiting to see what Canon does, but the forthcoming Sigma Foveon in L mount intrigues me more.

I really would have liked to see a 1DsIV from Canon.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 1, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "....More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger....."
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



And right now, Pentax is the only manufacturer (brand) with a wide range of existing lenses that would work. They even have the camera body. Just need a sensor... 

As far as "cheaper to manufacture" lenses, look at the current DA Pentax lenses- which are NOT cheap, nor are they made in Japan even.


----------



## robinlee (Dec 1, 2018)

Apart from that 75mp number, the rest would be disappointing.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 1, 2018)

danski0224 said:


> And right now, Pentax is the only manufacturer (brand) with a wide range of existing lenses that would work. They even have the camera body. Just need a sensor...
> 
> As far as "cheaper to manufacture" lenses, look at the current DA Pentax lenses- which are NOT cheap, nor are they made in Japan even.


And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.


And portability! You think a 1DX2 is heavy, try hauling around a 4X5


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 1, 2018)

stevelee said:


> More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger.



We shall see. If it's a Canon sensor, I would believe you but it's Sony.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 1, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> We shall see. If it's a Canon sensor, I would believe you but it's Sony.


No we won’t. This sensor may have wider dynamic range than some other sensor, but it won’t be because of the precision. Similarly a beaker doesn’t have greater capacity simply because it has additional grading divisions.

Image sensor dynamic range is the ratio of full well capacity to the noise floor (defined as SNR=1). ADC precision doesn’t affect either.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 2, 2018)

"....mage sensor dynamic range is the ratio of full well capacity to the noise floor (defined as SNR=1). ADC precision doesn’t affect either. ..."

---

ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) precision only has value in terms of number of gradations available for display on an output device. UNLESS your display supports the full 10, 12, 14 or 16-bits per colour channel range saved within your bitmap files, then ANY image you display simply won't have the colour and luminance fidelity of the original high-bandwidth capture devices (i.e. the display is not as good as your camera).

First thing is FIRST is when you shoot on a high-dynamic range cameras such as a 10-bit Panasonic GH5s! You SHOULD be doing all your editing and display on a 10-bit monitor! After that, you can output a final still photo or video in any 8-bits per channel or 10-bits per channel file format you so desire when you do your final export.

In terms of actual HARDWARE image sensor specifications, you should be looking at the UNDERLYING characteristics of the sensor itself such as finding out the following:

a) Underlying CMOS sensor substrate type and dopants added.
example: Certain models of Sony Exmor sensors use dopants that allow a greater well saturation within X-amount of time so more photons can be used to create a charge which can be counted and converted to a large integer value. This means certain additives within a CMOS sensor should be looked for in a product description because you can gather that more photons will convert to a measurable electron charge without extraneous "Shot Noise" from internal and external camera electronics "Contaminating" the electron count if those sensor additives are present. SOME manufacturers WILL tell you what dopants or substrate layer types are used.

b) Find a camera that has a sensor whose BASIC Signal-to-Noise ratio specification is HIGH! In the old days 65 DB (counted in Decibels) was considered a decent SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio). Nowadays 76, 78, 80 and even 84 to 96 DB are possible! The higher the number, the better because it means LESS shot noise from camera electronics and the local environment are able to contaminate the individual photosite photon counting and charge conversion.

c) In terms of the LEAST NOISE and CLEANEST looking image is actually the FUJI XT3 series and their much larger and more expensive Medium Format cameras.
It seems the Nikon D850 has the cleanest signal of the "More Affordable" still photo systems. Canon is in the middle throughout their range.

d) To REDUCE issues related to LIMITED DYNAMIC RANGE of any given sensor, (i.e. the ratio between the brightest and darkest areas in an image or scene)
SIMPLY ADD MORE LIGHT to your scene. Two or four extra light of even 500 lumens WILL allow you to recover MORE image information in post-production.
Soooo....buy an on-camera light or four lights on some stands! That's a LOT CHEAPER than buying a new camera!

In terms of Smartphones, the BEST lower-noise cameras are on the LG-V30, LG-V40, Asus Zenfone 3, 4 and 5, The Google Pixel-3 and the iPhone X.
You get the CLEAREST photos on the above. The HIGHER dynamic range smartphone cameras are on the Sony xPeria Z-series 4K premiums,
The iPhone-X, and the Huaweii P20.Those give you the greatest ability to shoot bright sunny days AND darkest nights and STILL get a viewable
image in BOTH the light areas (i.e. not too much clipping!) and Dark areas (i.e. not too much crushed blacks/shadows)

I would say the best all-rounder camera phones are the Apple iPhone-X and the Asus Zenfone 5 for a combination of image cleanliness (less noise) and higher dynamic range.

For DSLR/Mirrorless, your best bets are probably the Fuji XT3, the Nikon D850 and the Canon M50 in that order for a cost-per-performance ratio on image cleanliness, high dynamic range and low price! My PERSONAL preference is the Fuji XT3 for smallest size and highest clean-image performance for the least amount of money! For the absolute cleanest Image AND highest dynamic range in one camera, that is the Nikon D850 series BUT you WILL PAY for that privilege! For a Video Camera-centric DSLR, there is NO CONTEST, it's the Canon 1DxMk2 with its DPAF (Dual Pixel Autofocus) -- Good Video Has to be CLEAR and IN-FOCUS not Blurry! The Sony A7s2 isn't good enough for sports and action video even though it has the best low-light capability!


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.



Difficult to say, right? Fuji seems to be doing OK with their digital mini-medium format camera and lenses.

There are a whole lot of old Pentax lenses out there that will cover a 645 sensor. Cheap.

All Pentax has to do is build one. They could stay with the same pixel size as the 645D, and I bet it would still sell like proverbial hotcakes. If it had an electronic shutter, live view and an EVF, and around $10k (or less), I might even get one, after adjusting to one kidney.

I am intrigued by the other medium format backs, but they will likely be forever out of reach financially for me. So is a $9k Canon 35mm format.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 2, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.
> 
> The 5DIV was a step in the right direction and the sensor was much better than the 5DSR. Let’s hope the sensor holds up in areas other than just resolution.


Over 75 MP shall mean that Canon finally goes BSI (I can't see how they can make it otherwise). Will be interesting to see what sensors they use - their own or someone else's like Sony, Towerjazz or whatever. I just hope they will lift the DR to at least 14.x EVs instead of 12.x like on the 5DsR, although >75 MP on a 35mm might not quite allow such a lift.

Otherwise I agree - clean shadows are often important and for non-static scenes without great light control, the 5DsR is seldom the best choice. For static scenes, you can mean stack and achieve very clean output though.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 2, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> Over 75 MP shall mean that Canon finally goes BSI (I can't see how they can make it otherwise).



They can easily make a >75MP full frame sensor which isn’t BSI.

This APS-H sensor is not BSI, is smaller than full frame, and has 60% more than 75MP.


----------



## TAF (Dec 2, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "....More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger....."
> 
> ---
> 
> ...




I like where you're going; how about a 60x60 sensor and associated electronics that can conveniently be packaged into the removable backs found on Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya (maybe they need a 60x70?) etc.

(For less money than current approaches)

Then repackaged again for use on the Rollei TLR and other 120 film cameras.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 2, 2018)

I would only ever consider "Medium Format" if it has a sensor measuring not 1 mm less than 60mm x 60mm. And I'd also take 60x70mm.
44x33 is nothing but a cropped joke.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 3, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "It's almost all about PHOTOSITE SIZE IN MICRONS!!!
> 
> The Canon 1DxMk2 is about 6.3 or 6.4 microns so it's image quality in terms of noise and low light capability is going to be pretty darn good! The Sony A7s2 has about an 11 to 12 micron photosite size, so IT'S low light ability is and DOES BLOW AWAY the 1DxMk2's!



Nope. Pic related. *At the same view size* the A7s2 is soft and lacks detail, yet it doesn't really have less noise. Its noise is simply soft like the rest of the image. The color noise in these images disappears with default color NR (dpreview naturally turns this off) leaving the A7s2 at a severe disadvantage to the 1Dx2 and the 5Dsr at ISO 12800.

Typical reviews and online memes suggest the A7s2 is one of the best high ISO cameras. The same reviews and memes say the 5Dsr is "not a high ISO camera." I would rather work with a 5Dsr ISO 12,800 RAW file any day of the week.

As for extreme ISOs, the 1Dx2 and A7s2 show the same behavior through 409,600. The noise level is about the same but the noise is literally sharper on the 1Dx2, like the rest of the image. People tend to have an aversion to sharper noise while pixel peeping but at common view sizes the sharpness and detail stands out more than the noise. And the sharper, higher resolution image has more room for NR if the noise really bothers you. No matter how you slice it, the 1Dx2 is the better high ISO camera for stills. (Video can be another beast entirely depending on how the image is captured and scaled off the sensor.)

Since the introduction of gapless microlenses pixel size has not mattered for high ISO, given the same sensor size and level of technology.

DR should, in theory, be affected by pixel size. But in practice we're not seeing that. Some of the highest pixel density 35mm sensors are also the highest DR sensors, higher than MF offerings. And this has occurred not only with Sony's on-chip ADC sensors (Nikon D8x0 line, and now A7r3), but in the Canon line with off-chip ADC sensors. At introduction the 5Dsr was the highest DR Canon body until Canon's first on-chip ADC sensor bodies.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 3, 2018)

^ the images on the right don’t look “soft,” they look out of focus.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 3, 2018)

Quackator said:


> After close to 1000 pictures with the R in the most adverse lighting conditions
> there is only one pain point: It is too small for me. Grip and controls of the
> 5D MkIV are grievously missed.




If you like this camera, and your only complaint is that it is small, why not consider an L-Plate?

Really Right Stuff is rolling out a and Base-Plate and an L-Plate. This may be the thing to help you love your new camera.

I took the liberty of including a link:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Canon-EOS-R?quantity=1&custcol36=1&custcol50=2

Scott


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ^ the images on the right don’t look “soft,” they look out of focus.



They're focused. They're just high ISO images pitting 12mp vs. 20mp and 50mp. Higher ISOs introduce softness, and when you scale down the higher rez files to the same view size it's game over.

I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor. Never the less, even at the "correct" sizing, the A7s2 is simply not as good at 12,800 as the 1Dx2 or the 5Ds/sr.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 3, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> They're focused. They're just high ISO images pitting 12mp vs. 20mp and 50mp. Higher ISOs introduce softness, and when you scale down the higher rez files to the same view size it's game over.
> 
> I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor. Never the less, even at the "correct" sizing, the A7s2 is simply not as good at 12,800 as the 1Dx2 or the 5Ds/sr.


All the pictures I post on this site are enlarged, so if I'm trying to make a point about sharpness, noise, whatever, that point is obscured by seeing the picture enlarged. Perhaps my mistake is resizing pictures to be a reasonable size. Maybe I should just post giant versions and the board wouldn't do that, but I haven't experimented to see. I have asked for guidelines and suggestions on optimum sizes for posting, but have never received a response.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 3, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Nope. Pic related. *At the same view size* the A7s2 is soft and lacks detail, yet it doesn't really have less noise. Its noise is simply soft like the rest of the image. The color noise in these images disappears with default color NR (dpreview naturally turns this off) leaving the A7s2 at a severe disadvantage to the 1Dx2 and the 5Dsr at ISO 12800.
> 
> Typical reviews and online memes suggest the A7s2 is one of the best high ISO cameras. The same reviews and memes say the 5Dsr is "not a high ISO camera." I would rather work with a 5Dsr ISO 12,800 RAW file any day of the week.
> 
> ...



=====

In this case, you have given us truly DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE as noted above that the Sony A7s2 SHOULD NOT be used for Sports/Action photography due to it's inability to remain sharp at fast frame rates!

I personally don't remember the Sony A7s2 ever being that soft, but I should note I was using Zeiss Cinema glass for my Sony A7s2 shoots so LENS GLASS may be an issue here!
ISO-wise, I usually use it in really dark industrial setting, so noise is NOT a big deal to me, but rather sheer light gathering power at a given LOW light level was my primary concern.
I just needed to SEE the actual subject of my video and didn't care too much that it was a noisy image!

Again, I personally like the Canon 1DxMk2 as the best of the current range of DSLR's. I STILL SAY the Nikon D850 has the CLEANEST and BEST light gathering power at a decent price, so I say go with that one if CLEAN final image quality (less noise!) is what counts for you. For me, I need IN-FOCUS video and that means DPAF which means Canon......THAT IS......UNTIL NOW!!!!! ...... with my NEWEST GEAR which is a hundred steps BEYOND in terms of huge sensor low-light gathering power, high frame rates, high dynamic range, huge pixel counts and final super-clean, in-focus, image quality than what I have EVER USED BEFORE and which ALL OF YOU shall soon be able to get for yourselves! Hint Hint! Wink Wink! Nod Nod!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 3, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor.



Add to that I’m viewing it on a smartphone!


----------



## Act444 (Dec 3, 2018)

Think I stated in another thread but as an owner of both the 5D4 and 5DSR cameras, the basic difference is cleanliness (at high ISO) vs. detail. Unfortunately (at least within the Canon system) one can’t have both, so it comes down to which parameter the photographer values more. And it may depend on your shooting environment. I tried the 5DSR/24-70 2.8 II combo for the first time the other day and it was better than I expected- although not as crisp as the 35 or 85mm, at low ISO there was a *clear* increase in detail retention vs. using that same lens on the 5D4. Even at 6400, detail was greater (but images were far noisier as a result). Honestly although there were a few situations where a 5D4 may have fared better (especially at high ISO when I had to bring up shadows), overall I preferred the additional resolution and cropping power I had with the 5DS. Simply amazing how much I could crop into the image and still have a 30+ MP shot!


----------



## Quackator (Dec 3, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> If you like this camera, and your only complaint is that it is small, why not consider an L-Plate?



That would be mandatory, anyway. But it wouldn't generate
extra free manoeuvering space for my thumb on the back,
and it won't give me back the natural placement of index finger 
and thumb on the control wheels.

The next R hopefully goes back to the proven ergonomics of the 5D MkIV.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 3, 2018)

Quackator said:


> That would be mandatory, anyway. But it wouldn't generate
> extra free manoeuvering space for my thumb on the back,
> and it won't give me back the natural placement of index finger
> and thumb on the control wheels.
> ...


Amen to that!
Nelu


----------



## JonSnow (Dec 3, 2018)

maybe we can hope to see it sooner than later?



> Photokina 2019 chancelled.
> 
> Imaging industry and Koelnmesse decide on new starting point for the new annual cycle
> 
> Following a successful photokina 2018, the German Photo Industry Association (PIV), as conceptual sponsor of the trade fair, and the event's organiser Koelnmesse have agreed not to organise the next leading global trade fair in May 2019, as initially planned, but in May 2020. From Wednesday 27 May 2020 to Saturday 30 May 2020, all the market leaders in the imaging industry are expected once again in Cologne. The decision to postpone the start of the announced annual cycle by one year is intended to give all participants the opportunity to further develop the new concept for photokina and to tap into new target groups among exhibitors and visitors in order to heighten the status of the trade fair as a global platform for the photography and imaging industry.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> They can easily make a >75MP full frame sensor which isn’t BSI.
> 
> This APS-H sensor is not BSI, is smaller than full frame, and has 60% more than 75MP.


Of course Canon can pack a ton of pixels on a small area already, but that makes it practically useless except some very special scenarios in which we hardly ever shoot. Just look at their own video, and notice the heavily blown-out highlights on the right capture that are not blown out on the left one. The dynamic range they got out of the sensor downright sucks, although on the very shot it looks contrasty and appealing. Real world shooting is an entirely different story, though!





Keep in mind that the pixel pitch (the area of a single pixel) is a key determinant to the SNR of the sensor and thus the dynamic range you get out of it. Using a given technology, sensor sensitivity goes hand in hand with the pixel pitch. I don't need 75 MP or 122 MP if it means that I only can record tonal detail in a range of 9 stops of light or less! That means that most of my landscape shots would either have a badly blown out sky, or heavily noisy foreground (or whatever would be in a bit of shadow); and I would have to resort to doing HDR for pretty much every single shot. Imagine the image quality of some prehistoric entry-level digital Canon DSLR... except just resolution that I often can get by stiching multiple shots into a panoramatic image anyway. That's probably what a non-BSI 75 or 122 MP CMOS sensor would give you, even full frame.

The newest Phase One IQ4 has gone up to 150 MP, but that is a huge full frame medium format sensor with 16-bit ADC (that costs $50k - just the digital back). Although it roughly has the pixel pitch of the 5DsR, unlike the 5DsR it is a BSI CMOS sensor and also has 2 bits more ADC (=> whole 4 times the amount of tonal resolution captured), which allows for way cleaner input.

Moreover, (as surely some older post already reported), Sony is about to roll out a 60 MP 16-bit BSI CMOS sensor. My guess is that it is going to beat the output of the GFX in pretty much every way except the pixel sharpness: check this (Sony Alpha Rumors). No wonder in the end, all high-end cameras except perhaps just Canon is buying sensors from Sony. Of course they have a strategic advantage when it comes to technology. I'd love to see Canon competing with them and I really hope that Canon is going to deliver something similar in their high-MP EOS R, although I see just too many reasons to doubt it...


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 3, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> Of course Canon can pack a ton of pixels on a small area already, but that makes it practically useless except some very special scenarios in which we hardly ever shoot. Just look at their own video, and notice the heavily blown-out highlights on the right capture that are not blown out on the left one. The dynamic range they got out of the sensor downright sucks, although on the very shot it looks contrasty and appealing. Real world shooting is an entirely different story, though!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is actually another big issue with that many megapixels on a small area such as a 35mm sensor - diffraction. On the 5DsR, diffraction can be noticed as early as from f/7.1. If you max the megapixels to 75 and beyond on a 35mm sensor, you'll start to see it even earlier. Then at so often highly practical f-stops as f/9 and f/11, the advantage of those megapixels will start to fade away; and your high-MP camera will perform similarly to a lower MP camera, except that the lower MP camera will have greater tonal range. At that point, I'd rather have the latter. Just ask yourself based on your own shooting - what f-stops do you most often use? What is the distribution of f-stops across your real-world shooting? That should give you some clue as to whether the megapixels are worth it for you.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 4, 2018)

Canon may eventually go to BSI, but I imagine it would be in pursuit of bandwith from stacked designs rather than a marginal increase in per pixel DR.

An interesting compromise without changing to BSI would be binning. In high brightness range scenes, bin 4 pixels before the digital quantization for an according increase in effective well capacity and therefore dynamic range at the expense of resolution. In lower brightness range scenes, e.g. controlled light or low-sun landscapes, use the full resolution.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 4, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon may eventually go to BSI, but I imagine it would be in pursuit of bandwith from stacked designs rather than a marginal increase in per pixel DR.
> 
> An interesting compromise without changing to BSI would be binning. In high brightness range scenes, bin 4 pixels before the digital quantization for an according increase in effective well capacity and therefore dynamic range at the expense of resolution. In lower brightness range scenes, e.g. controlled light or low-sun landscapes, use the full resolution.


I can imagine that, too - in the end, it really depends on the majority of Canon's customer base, and they are mostly not technically-oriented pixel peepers that would demand ultimate image quality and complain if they don't get it. Binning sounds like a nice trick, but I generally find it hard to justify not upgrading the technology when virtually all competitors have done so. Their cameras are going to produce output that is technically way superior. BSI gives around 1 stop of advantage; 16-bit ADCs 2 stops. 3 stops of DR advantage is a non-trivial amount, especially when it makes a difference in my shooting, and Canon would really have to deliver amazing value in some other area for me to favor it in a buying decision. Canon has great ergonomics, build quality, colors and lenses; but other manufacturers are closing in pretty well. Fujifilm is a great example; but looking at Sony and the trends... it looks like they will get there.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 5, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> I can imagine that, too - in the end, it really depends on the majority of Canon's customer base, and they are mostly not technically-oriented pixel peepers that would demand ultimate image quality and complain if they don't get it. Binning sounds like a nice trick, but I generally find it hard to justify not upgrading the technology when virtually all competitors have done so. Their cameras are going to produce output that is technically way superior. BSI gives around 1 stop of advantage; 16-bit ADCs 2 stops. 3 stops of DR advantage is a non-trivial amount, especially when it makes a difference in my shooting, and Canon would really have to deliver amazing value in some other area for me to favor it in a buying decision. Canon has great ergonomics, build quality, colors and lenses; but other manufacturers are closing in pretty well. Fujifilm is a great example; but looking at Sony and the trends... it looks like they will get there.



I’m not sure we’ve seen a one stop improvement materialize from BSI.

As to the ADC, what improvement are you measuring in stops? You can expect better gradation, but I don’t know how to express that in stops. Adding two bits would allow two additional stops of DR to be linearly represented in a digital string, but that doesn’t translate back to the pixel characteristics (i.e., well capacity and noise).


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m not sure we’ve seen a one stop improvement materialize from BSI.
> 
> As to the ADC, what improvement are you measuring in stops? You can expect better gradation, but I don’t know how to express that in stops. Adding two bits would allow two additional stops of DR to be linearly represented in a digital string, but that doesn’t translate back to the pixel characteristics (i.e., well capacity and noise).



Exactly! Imagine what would happen if Canon is cheeky and says "we're using 32-bit ADCs!", will the same people that argue that bits==stops DR in Sony sensors keep arguing that and say Canon now has 32 stops of DR?


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 5, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> Exactly! Imagine what would happen if Canon is cheeky and says "we're using 32-bit ADCs!", will the same people that argue that bits==stops DR in Sony sensors keep arguing that and say Canon now has 32 stops of DR?


True, there is more complexity to it than just how many bits the ADC have. Something to compare is the PhaseOne IQ4 sensor with about the 5DsR's pixel pitch that has 15(+) stops of DR - and it employs both 16-bit ADC and BSI. With about the same pixel sizes both the shadow and highlight recovery is just amazing... there are sample IQ4 RAW files to download and play with in Capture One.
It can be other things than BSI and the ADC bit depth that account for most of the difference, but it would be nice to know what it is if not these.

Canon sensors' weak spot appears to be readout noise - a notable and ISO-invariant amount of noise that is added after every single exposure (which doesn't allow for the ISO-invariance of the sensor). Boosting ISO to 800 and above, it gets to a bit less than a stop worse than e.g., Nikon D850 or Sony A7R3 when normalized by resolution (I guess mostly due to BSI); but at lower ISOs, the noise introduced by sensor readout spoils the output badly:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV___1187_1177_1106

Also, comparison of the Full SNR (logarithmic view) of the sensors reveals quite a difference. When it comes to BSI vs. non-BSI (e.g., Nikon D800E vs. D810), I see about half a stop advantage in SNR in favor of the BSI sensor, so although it's not a full stop (you're right on that), it is still quite a lot (clearly, it allows the photo sites to gather more light).

Studio comparisons (to include some actual data)...:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...r16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 5, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> It can be other things than BSI and the ADC bit depth that account for most of the difference, but it would be nice to know what it is if not these.



With gapless microlenses, perhaps BSI gives some slight improvement to how much light a sensor gathers per unit exposure, but since dynamic range is a function of full well capacity (i.e., full exposure), I don’t expect it helps much from that perspective. Maybe there is less noise due to some thermal improvements (the wiring is on the heat sink side). That couple marginally improve dynamic range.

I’d bet the biggest players at this point are downstream electronics (how much noise couples in the analog portion, and heat), and quantum efficiency.



mk0x55 said:


> When it comes to BSI vs. non-BSI (e.g., Nikon D800E vs. D810), I see about half a stop advantage in SNR in favor of the BSI sensor, so although it's not a full stop (you're right on that), it is still quite a lot (clearly, it allows the photo sites to gather more light).



I believe that is a comparison of cameras which both use FSI sensors. D850 was the first Nikon SLR to use BSI, unless I’m mistaken.

BSI is an important architectural step, but I don’t think it has been demonstrated as a panacea for visible image quality. Rather, it’s necessary for straightforward stacked sensor design.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> With gapless microlenses, perhaps BSI gives some slight improvement to how much light a sensor gathers per unit exposure, but since dynamic range is a function of full well capacity (i.e., full exposure), I don’t expect it helps much from that perspective. Maybe there is less noise due to some thermal improvements (the wiring is on the heat sink side). That couple marginally improve dynamic range.
> 
> I’d bet the biggest players at this point are downstream electronics (how much noise couples in the analog portion, and heat), and quantum efficiency.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your insights!

Your are right, D810 has indeed a non-BSI CMOS sensor. Then the more correct comparison from me would then be the D810 vs. D850, which shows the same SNR figures, normalized to resolution. Interesting. I learned something new.

Well, I'm curious to see what Canon comes up with in the not-so-distant future.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ... (see above) ...


Another hot question to me would be Canon's off-chip ADC architecture vs. a more modern on-chip one that Sony uses.
This might actually be the greatest source of impairment to image quality in Canon cameras... Canon's sensors themselves might actually be just as capable as Sony's.

In 2015, a senior executive of Canon said that they decided to concentrate on on-chip ADC architectures in the future:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers


Dave Etchells & Masaya Maeda said:


> *DE: *This is actually a very technical question. I’m not sure if it’s one that you would be free to answer or not, but with sensor technology some have pointed to the analog-to-digital conversion implementations being very critical for image quality and dynamic range. Can you tell us whether Canon currently uses on-chip or off-chip A/D converters?
> 
> *MM:* Right now, we use both on-chip and off-chip, but recently I made the decision going forward to concentrate on the on-chip.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 5, 2018)

Yes, notionally doing the quantization on sensor should be beneficial (less opportunity for analog noise to be inserted; digital coupling is easier to mitigate). There are mixed reports about whether canon currently has on sensor ADC architecture, but I think it’s all speculative (unless chipworks has done a tear down).


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 6, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Yes, notionally doing the quantization on sensor should be beneficial (less opportunity for analog noise to be inserted; digital coupling is easier to mitigate). There are mixed reports about whether canon currently has on sensor ADC architecture, but I think it’s all speculative (unless chipworks has done a tear down).



----

If Canon is going to do on-sensor-chip Digital Signal Processing (DSP) and ADC (Analog to Digital Conversion), then they might as well look to TI (Texas Instruments) for their incredibly fantastic DSP and ADC intellectual property. Especially, get the 32-bits downsampled to 16-bits per colour channel ADC so they can take best advantage of the "Natural Anti-Aliaising" that happens within the Nyquist sampling theorem.

Canon just need to stack the ADC and DSP circuits on the rear of the Canon Image Sensors. If possible, do synchronous parallel readouts for each line of pixels so that a form of global shutter can be effected at a reasonable price. Simultaneous multi-line readout isn't TRUE Global Shutter but it IS a lot better than current offerings on DSLRs!

Canon DOES NOT HAVE MUCH TIME anymore to do the above. Other players are coming online with DISRUPTIVE Audio/Video/Stills images and lens technology that gives truly Professional DSLR and Cinema-level features at Consumer/Prosumer-level prices! Canon is about to GET SQUEEZED BIG TIME so they better not hold back on the NEWEST technology and much better prices!


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 7, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> I STILL SAY the Nikon D850 has the CLEANEST and BEST light gathering power at a decent price,



I would agree. But it's not even 1 full stop better than the 5Dsr. Maybe 2/3rds stop. And that's with 3 years newer tech and the much praised Sony patents/fab.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 7, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> There is actually another big issue with that many megapixels on a small area such as a 35mm sensor - diffraction. On the 5DsR, diffraction can be noticed as early as from f/7.1.



People treat diffraction like a brick wall or a boogeyman. It is neither. You are never at an IQ disadvantage for using a higher sampling frequency (more MP). The IQ improvement, versus a lower resolution sensor of the same format, does not drop off at the so called 'diffraction limit'. Diffraction just becomes apparent if you were to compare your image to the same resolution sensor in a larger format.

Well beyond that 'limit' you are not resolving the detail you otherwise could, but you're also not doing any worse than a lower resolution sensor.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 7, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I would agree. But it's not even 1 full stop better than the 5Dsr. Maybe 2/3rds stop. And that's with 3 years newer tech and the much praised Sony patents/fab.



Well, from what I could see, the D850 is quite a bit cleaner in the shadows. It might be 1 stop on the average across the tonal range though. The shadow SNR of the D810 is ~12 dB higher than the 5DsR, which equals to about 16 times cleaner than the 5DsR (i.e., 4 stops cleaner). As you go toward the highlights, it becomes better:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810/15

I own the 5DsR, shoot it and sort of love it, but I know it can be pretty horribly noisy. If I need to get rid of the noise, I need to do mean stacking, which is only usable for static scenes like landscapes if there isn't much motion that would mean hurting the image. Of course, you could argue that this noise perfectionism is just for pixel peeping... it often does not matter for practical use... well, it might, based on what you shoot and how much you need to lift the shadows to make the image you wanted. Also, to get the shadow detail to the same level as the D810, I would have to take 16 shots of the same scene and mean stack, which often is prohibitive, especially if you shoot at night with 2 minute exposures on tripod... + other two minutes to cut systematic noise and hot pixels.
I have to say though that without having this camera, I very likely wouldn't have learned tricks to get around its image quality limitations. So feel grateful in a way... although I often wish that my camera too had the image quality of the Nikon D810/D850.



dtaylor said:


> People treat diffraction like a brick wall or a boogeyman. It is neither. You are never at an IQ disadvantage for using a higher sampling frequency (more MP). The IQ improvement, versus a lower resolution sensor of the same format, does not drop off at the so called 'diffraction limit'. Diffraction just becomes apparent if you were to compare your image to the same resolution sensor in a larger format.
> 
> Well beyond that 'limit' you are not resolving the detail you otherwise could, but you're also not doing any worse than a lower resolution sensor.



I fully agree and meant that - it just makes the high resolution useless if the diffraction limits you to the extent that you don't get more resolution using the higher resolution sensor than you get from the lower resolution one. In such cases, you could trade the resolution for other desirable parameters - such as the dynamic range. Thinking about 51, 75, 122 and 250 MP on 35 mm sensor, diffraction may become visible at f/8, f/6.7, f/5 and f/3.5, respectively. The Nikon D810 has it from f/9.5 and D850 from f/9. Just for the fun comparison, the $50k Phase One IQ4 back with 150 MP may suffer from diffraction from f/7.1.
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 7, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I would agree. But it's not even 1 full stop better than the 5Dsr. Maybe 2/3rds stop. And that's with 3 years newer tech and the much praised Sony patents/fab.



---

In MOST situations, this SHOULD NOT be a problem, because one SHOULD use extra light (a flash or even the cheapest 250 lumens solid diffused light) to make up that extra stop!

Just Add Extra Light = Image Noise And Light Gathering Problem Solved!

Sony currently has the best general market image sensors, but since Canon is no slouch in using advanced image processing to get cleanish images, I would say the newest Canon mirrorless offerings are about equal in terms of light gathering power versus image noise to Sony Sensor-based cameras BUT the Nikon D850 is STILL BETTER at having less noise at the same ISO-level and/or aperture! The newest Canon Full Frame mirrorless cameras are promising but NEWER players are coming very soon that WILL undercut on prices and out-deliver on technology and features.

Canon's time is short in terms of it's CURRENT price per performance and features metrics. It falls short and is ABOUT to get an tush-whooping from some pretty big electronics giants in the next little while! They need to bring out some NEW HUUUUGE-ON-FEATURES stills and video cameras lest they get dumped on their keester by some NEW biggest-boys-on-the-block company!

A large MF sensor of 8+ microns per photosite at 4:4:4/4:2:2 and 10-to-16 bits per channel interframe-encoded DCI 8k Video at 60 fps AND 50 megapixel 4:4:4 16-bits-per-channel JPEG-2000 and RAW combined Stills/Video camera WILL make that BIG SPLASH than Canon so desperately needs now! They BETTER GET HOPPING !!!!


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> Well, from what I could see, the D850 is quite a bit cleaner in the shadows.



It has about 2.5ev greater DR at base ISO. By ISO 400 this drops to 1ev.



> I own the 5DsR, shoot it and sort of love it, but I know it can be pretty horribly noisy.



This would be the 5th or 6th time on this website where someone has claimed this, and when I post test images the claim disappears. I'm tired of posting images and already have in this thread.

Shipping FF cameras, right now, are within 1ev of each other in terms of high ISO noise. The 5Dsr was never noisy. When it was released it was arguably the best high ISO body out with the caveat of being artificially capped to 12,800. (There was no reason for canon to cap it at 12,800 instead of 25,600. And there's really no reason for anyone to ship any ILC with a cap over 25,600 since they're all useless past that point unless your goal is a 3x5 that looks like it came from expired 110 film.)

The 5Dsr is, however, a terrible camera to pixel peep if you don't realize what's happening when you pixel peep. You can sort all the 5Dsr reviews into two categories: compared at same view/print size, and only compared while pixel peeping. The category will tell you the reviewers opinion on its high ISO performance. This is why nearly the entire world of online reviewers was saying the 5Dsr was "not a high ISO camera" while Imaging Resource was telling you how massive your prints could be even at high ISOs.

With the exception (today) of the D850, no other 35mm camera's image is magnified as much while pixel peeping.



> Also, to get the shadow detail to the same level as the D810, I would have to take 16 shots of the same scene and mean stack,



That's a ridiculous claim. At base ISO you would need your normal shot and a shot at +2.5ev to match a D8x0's DR. By ISO 400 that drops to a 1ev difference, and drops a little bit more as ISOs progress. So you would need 2 exposures 1ev apart. Though, in practice, a 1ev DR difference is trivial and can basically be eliminated with NR.



> I fully agree and meant that - it just makes the high resolution useless if the diffraction limits you to the extent that you don't get more resolution using the higher resolution sensor than you get from the lower resolution one. In such cases, you could trade the resolution for other desirable parameters - such as the dynamic range.



Again, we're not seeing higher DR from lower pixel density sensors in ILC cameras right now. I don't know why. In theory the full well capacity should be better the larger the pixel site. Yet the highest DR bodies for both off chip ADCs (5Dsr) and on chip ADCs (D80x0; A7r3) have relatively small pixels.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 9, 2018)

I really have to agree with what dtaylor writes about DR and noise. In the range in which I mainly work, iso640 - 6400, the 5DSR, 5DIV and D850 all have the same DR http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 5DS R,Nikon D850 and I sometimes show pairs of images comparing the 5DIV at iso 6400 and the 400mm DO II f/4 with the 5DSR at iso 6400 and 100-400mm II at f/5.6 pushed to iso 18900 equivalent in post (+1.56ev) where the two are very similar when scaled to the same size. It helps to have the best RAW converter for reducing noise - DxO with PRIME noise reduction. Oh, here is the bellbird again, buried deep in the New Zealand forest green canopy to prove it. 5DIV on top, 5DSR below as it clearly hasn't been registered by some.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 9, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> It has about 2.5ev greater DR at base ISO. By ISO 400 this drops to 1ev.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough - I was not comparing the cameras being shot at ISO 640-6400 (shooting e.g. landscapes or architectures at that high ISOs is often unacceptable to me). I meant shooting at the base ISO and if needed, up to something like ISO 320. The limits I'm referring to show up when lifting shadows in pictures. I also claimed above in this thread that from ISO 800, the cameras become almost equal in terms of noise performance.



dtaylor said:


> That's a ridiculous claim. At base ISO you would need your normal shot and a shot at +2.5ev to match a D8x0's DR. By ISO 400 that drops to a 1ev difference, and drops a little bit more as ISOs progress. So you would need 2 exposures 1ev apart. Though, in practice, a 1ev DR difference is trivial and can basically be eliminated with NR.


True, mean stacking can be avoided if you want to blend exposures instead. My mistake that I didn't mention this option. However, again, to achieve this (the same shadow noise level with the 5DsR as with the D810, normalized to its resolution) for a night shot in the dark, you need to get a 4 stops brighter exposure to use shadow areas from. If your base exposure is 6 minutes (and another 6 minutes to get rid of hot pixels and systematic noise), +4 EV from that is 192 minutes of having the camera busy for the second exposure (96 minutes of that is shooting the subject). That is no win compared to mean stacking 16 exposures - it takes the same amount of time. Not to mention the fact that the longer the exposure, the more noise you get (dark current...). So doing exposure blending for then cleaning up the shadows is only beneficial when you have much shorter exposures; and the benefit dwells in not having to mean-stack that many images in postprocessing. It might also be worth considering that doing exposure blending like that is a more laborious process in Photoshop (although not by much). Mean stacking is a brute force method compared to it, but you get much cleaner picture across the entire tonal range.

Since Canons get closer to Sony sensors the higher ISO we use; a shortcut to that long shooting procedure for later mean-stacking or exposure blending would be using a higher ISO instead, and mean-stacking and/or exposure-blending shots with that. This is due to that mean-stacking four ISO 800 shots from the 5DsR results in a picture cleaner than ISO 200 shot on the same camera, which would be the equivalent to it when using a completely ISO-invariant sensor. Note however, that the higher ISO you use, the less dynamic range gets captured and if there is a highly dynamic scene (even at night... like a nicely lit house on a darker, shadowy meadow), there will be penalties - you might be forced to go exposure blending and/or HDR, and blend more than two exposures to get what you want.


----------



## epiieq1 (Dec 9, 2018)

My biggest problem? I'm in need of a new body sooner rather than later. I don't know that I can wait for Canon to slowly come out with new tech. I've got a 5D Mark 3, and a 1DX (Mark 1). I've had my main board and my sensor replaced on the 5D3, and then recently had it modified by Spencer's. I've rented a 5DsR a couple of times and was pleased once I corrected technique issues, but I've been hoping/holding out for an updated version. I don't know that I'll be able to wait long enough and that bums me out. I wasn't impressed with the 5Dmk4 over my mk3 when I rented it, but I loved the huge leap in megapixels the 5DsR had over my 5D3. I wasn't seeing huge DR gains with what I shot on the 5Mk4 vs the 5DsR, so while it may be there, the type of shots I take don't necessarily show it.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 9, 2018)

There are rumors of 2 FF mirrorless coming out 2019: 24 mpx lower entry of EOS R and 75 mpx. Where is the pro EOS R?

I returned EOS R and wait until 2019 to make a decision on what FF mirrorless to get. All current cameras are full of compromises - EVF, dual card slot, ergonomic, etc.

Panasonic FF mirrorless is intriguing so will be Sony if they release their 16 bit 36 mpx sensor with 5.6 million EVF.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 9, 2018)

epiieq1 said:


> My biggest problem? I'm in need of a new body sooner rather than later. I don't know that I can wait for Canon to slowly come out with new tech. I've got a 5D Mark 3, and a 1DX (Mark 1). I've had my main board and my sensor replaced on the 5D3, and then recently had it modified by Spencer's. I've rented a 5DsR a couple of times and was pleased once I corrected technique issues, but I've been hoping/holding out for an updated version. I don't know that I'll be able to wait long enough and that bums me out. I wasn't impressed with the 5Dmk4 over my mk3 when I rented it, but I loved the huge leap in megapixels the 5DsR had over my 5D3. I wasn't seeing huge DR gains with what I shot on the 5Mk4 vs the 5DsR, so while it may be there, the type of shots I take don't necessarily show it.


Interesting, thanks for sharing your experience. I'm too quite pleased with the 5DsR overall (although its DR is over 1EV less than 5D4 as far as I could see), I just can't expect the level of shadow cleanness that comes out of modern Nikon and Sony cameras.

Also, the greatest asset from all my photo gear are my EF lenses. That pretty much locks me down to either Canon or Sony. Canon has great lenses and the closest contender to me would be Fujifilm. Switching to Fujifilm however (GFX-cameras if anything), would mean buying a completely new, expensive, system with few native lenses, and not really being able to reuse any of my current lenses. Even if I could try to adapt some, I don't expect the output to be really good - both due to vignetting, since my lenses are designed for 35mm sensors (not MF crop), as well as other optical performance degradation due to incompatibility.

So I resort to patience - mainly thank to not having an urgent need of upgrading. 

If you need to upgrade, there shall be used 5DsR bodies for second hand prices - probably worth taking a look if you liked its output.


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 10, 2018)

epiieq1 said:


> My biggest problem? I'm in need of a new body sooner rather than later. I don't know that I can wait for Canon to slowly come out with new tech. I've got a 5D Mark 3, and a 1DX (Mark 1). I've had my main board and my sensor replaced on the 5D3, and then recently had it modified by Spencer's. I've rented a 5DsR a couple of times and was pleased once I corrected technique issues, but I've been hoping/holding out for an updated version. I don't know that I'll be able to wait long enough and that bums me out. I wasn't impressed with the 5Dmk4 over my mk3 when I rented it, but I loved the huge leap in megapixels the 5DsR had over my 5D3. I wasn't seeing huge DR gains with what I shot on the 5Mk4 vs the 5DsR, so while it may be there, the type of shots I take don't necessarily show it.



I have a 5d4, and the difference between it and the 5d3 in terms of much less shadow noise and basically no banding is very noticeable in high DR landscapes. Other things, not that big of a deal. I just would like a 5dsr2, mirror or no mirror, with that level of DR and 40-50 MP and a tilt flip screen so I can put it on the ground without new adventures in neck pain.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 10, 2018)

"...


epiieq1 said:


> My biggest problem? I'm in need of a new body sooner rather than later. I don't know that I can wait for Canon to slowly come out with new tech. I've got a 5D Mark 3, and a 1DX (Mark 1). I've had my main board and my sensor replaced on the 5D3, and then recently had it modified by Spencer's. I've rented a 5DsR a couple of times and was pleased once I corrected technique issues, but I've been hoping/holding out for an updated version. I don't know that I'll be able to wait long enough and that bums me out. I wasn't impressed with the 5Dmk4 over my mk3 when I rented it, but I loved the huge leap in megapixels the 5DsR had over my 5D3. I wasn't seeing huge DR gains with what I shot on the 5Mk4 vs the 5DsR, so while it may be there, the type of shots I take don't necessarily show it.



---

Actually, I think your issue is NOT a BRAND NEW body but rather, I think you need BETTER LENSES!

In my personal opinion, getting a NEW or USED 5DsR is fine! What I WOULD DO HOWEVER, is take a SERIOUS LOOK at getting a new 50mm, 85 and/or 135 prime lens!
If you can swing the cash, the Zeiss Otus series are SHARPEST from corner to corner and that means nice looking CLEANER photos than other lenses! If you CANNOT spend the $5500+ per OTUS lens, I would take a serious look at the Sigma Art Series 50/85/135 lenses for sharpness! Test them IN-STORE before you pay for them though!
You need a Lens resolution chart which you print out at 2400 dpi on GLOSSY PHOTOPAPER on your home Canon/Epson printer and test EVERY Sigma lens you want to buy using that lens resolution chart! 

If you're willing to get an adapter, I've heard that the NEW Canon F/1.2 50mm just introduced for the NEW Canon Mirrorless R-series is one of the best lenses ever made! Once the R-series mount to EF adapter comes out for it, such a large lens will give you incredible resolution on that 5DsR especially when you stop it down to F2! It's $2300 US at B&H so go get something like that or the Sigma Art Series if you DO get your own 5DsR camera in the next two or three months!


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 10, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "...
> 
> 
> ---
> ...


Talking about Zeiss lenses, the Otuses are very expensive ($ ~4k for lens). What you could also consider is Zeiss' Milvus line. Unlike Otus, it is actually weather sealed, so if you go out and shoot in bad weather, you don't have to worry so much.
I recently bought the Zeiss Milvus 135 (around $ 2k) and have to say that it is an Otus in all but its name and flaring when shooting toward a strong light source like the Sun that is within the frame (Otuses handle that flawlessly and this is the only thing in which the Milvus appears to be inferior - unless of course you like that effect, because you can turn that to the good in portraiture and other shots). As far as sharpness is concerned, the Otus 85mm and Milvus 135mm perform the same. Corner to corner, optical perfection. The bokeh and overall rendering is amazing. Haven't seen this level of optical quality from any other lens so far. Plus the Milvus is weather sealed, as said.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 10, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "...
> 
> 
> If you're willing to get an adapter, I've heard that the NEW Canon F/1.2 50mm just introduced for the NEW Canon Mirrorless R-series is one of the best lenses ever made! Once the R-series mount to EF adapter comes out for it, such a large lens will give you incredible resolution on that 5DsR especially when you stop it down to F2! It's $2300 US at B&H so go get something like that or the Sigma Art Series if you DO get your own 5DsR camera in the next two or three months!



You may be waiting a very very very long time to see an adapter to fit an R lens onto a 5DS R.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You may be waiting a very very very long time to see an adapter to fit an R lens onto a 5DS R.


Purely technically it shouldn't be impossible, however, it would take some optics in the adapter (2 or more precisely crafted elements). It would be both expensive and necessarily also degrade the optical quality of the lens-adapter set, as any additional pieces of glass would do). It could be something like a close-up lens, just mounted on the back and having a slightly different function.

All that said, I don't think it's coming. Once they have a high-MP EOS R camera with even more resolution, better DR and features, the best thing about 5DsR would be to retire it and upgrade.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2018)

epiieq1 said:


> If you're willing to get an adapter, I've heard that the NEW Canon F/1.2 50mm just introduced for the NEW Canon Mirrorless R-series is one of the best lenses ever made! Once the R-series mount to EF adapter comes out for it, such a large lens will give you incredible resolution on that 5DsR especially when you stop it down to F2! It's $2300 US at B&H so go get something like that or the Sigma Art Series if you DO get your own 5DsR camera in the next two or three months!


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> "...
> If you're willing to get an adapter, I've heard that the NEW Canon F/1.2 50mm just introduced for the NEW Canon Mirrorless R-series is one of the best lenses ever made! Once the R-series mount to EF adapter comes out for it, such a large lens will give you incredible resolution on that 5DsR especially when you stop it down to F2! It's $2300 US at B&H so go get something like that or the Sigma Art Series if you DO get your own 5DsR camera in the next two or three months!



Hmmm.....I suppose for portraits you won't be requiring infinity focus. Even so I wonder if you're real name is Harry Mudd


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 11, 2018)

mk0x55 said:


> Purely technically it shouldn't be impossible, however, it would take some optics in the adapter (2 or more precisely crafted elements). It would be both expensive and necessarily also degrade the optical quality of the lens-adapter set, as any additional pieces of glass would do). It could be something like a close-up lens, just mounted on the back and having a slightly different function.
> 
> All that said, I don't think it's coming. Once they have a high-MP EOS R camera with even more resolution, better DR and features, the best thing about 5DsR would be to retire it and upgrade.



---

I do actually agree that an adapter R-to-EF isn't all that practical UNLESS an accessory maker such as Wooden Camera and others like them, MIGHT see some value in offering a $275 to $350 adapter for Canon 5D's, 1D's and even the M50 to allow users to take advantage of that MASSIVE image circle which will result in corner-to-corner ULTRA SHARP images on those cameras! I would suggest using a HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX Acrylic plastic elements (YES! Plastic!) for the focal plane adjustments. The effect on optical quality will be negligible because Acrylic can be made much more optically transparent than glass! It would also REDUCE the price to allow the adapter to be profitably sold for around $275 to $350 U.S. (210 to 280 Euros).

That 50mm F/1.2 Canon R-series lens is so much better than the equivalent EF that the TINY OPTICAL LOSS of an adapter would be made up by the overall larger corner-to-corner image sharpness offered by such a large lens being put on a 5D series! That rather inexpensive $2300 price plus a $375 cost of an adapter for the Canon 50mm F/1.2 would make it worth it. And when Canon brings out the FAST and optically superior 85mm, 135, 200, 400 and 600mm primes for new Canon Mirrorless 5D/1D Pro series cameras THEN everyone can start buying all those used DSLR 1Dx Mk 1 and 2's, 5D Mk 4 and 5DsR's at bargain prices and put on UTTERLY FANTASTIC R-series LENSES on them at pretty much a a bargain price!

Hey Wooden camera! How about it! 

Make an R-series-to-EF adapter using Optically-superb Acrylic elements! Give us that option!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You may be waiting a very very very long time to see an adapter to fit an R lens onto a 5DS R.



Harry forgot to mention (his modesty is well known) he has cleared all the technical hurdles and just such an adapter will be available in late 2017, via his time machine, for people to be ready when the RF lenses hit the market in 2018. The first 100 buyers get free rides in his Bell helicopter to meet the man from Oz, himself. Physics does not encumber Harry. He wrote the laws... he can suspend the laws.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 14, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Harry forgot to mention (his modesty is well known) he has cleared all the technical hurdles and just such an adapter will be available in late 2017, via his time machine, for people to be ready when the RF lenses hit the market in 2018. The first 100 buyers get free rides in his Bell helicopter to meet the man from Oz, himself. Physics does not encumber Harry. He wrote the laws... he can suspend the laws.



Are you saying that the F1.2 Medium Format prime lenses that Harry has mentioned being in the works a couple of weeks ago will never come to fruition? Oh no, good Lord! I was saving every single spare dime and penny to buy such a lens! i have got my Canon 400 F2.8 II IS up for sale to fund purchase of the lens. what a disappointment.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> Are you saying that the F1.2 Medium Format prime lenses that Harry has mentioned being in the works a couple of weeks ago will never come to fruition? Oh no, good Lord! I was saving every single spare dime and penny to buy such a lens! i have got my Canon 400 F2.8 II IS up for sale to fund purchase of the lens. what a disappointment.


"Prime" in Harry's world = 1-1000mm f/0.95 @ <1 pound... zoom no longer exists. It is called vroom, vroom now, and mounts natively on any camera ever made or that will be made. It doesn't need focus confirmation. Instead, it has composition confirmation derived from algorithms developed from the notes of Michelangelo. Also, the lens is so fast it can track the movement of Chuck Norris. With the profits, Harry will buy the rest of the archipelago his first island belongs to... and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 14, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.
> 
> The 5DIV was a step in the right direction and the sensor was much better than the 5DSR. Let’s hope the sensor holds up in areas other than just resolution.



I have both the 5DsR and the mkIV and when the DsR is sized down to 30MP dimensions the noise is superior to the mk IV at 6400. In truth the noise has never been an issue and my architecture clients enlarge some of the images to 8 feet wide.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 14, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> I have both the 5DsR and the mkIV and when the DsR is sized down to 30MP dimensions the noise is superior to the mk IV at 6400. In truth the noise has never been an issue and my architecture clients enlarge some of the images to 8 feet wide.


What happens when you normalize the other way (i.e., scale the MkIV up to 51MP)?


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 14, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> Are you saying that the F1.2 Medium Format prime lenses that Harry has mentioned being in the works a couple of weeks ago will never come to fruition? Oh no, good Lord! I was saving every single spare dime and penny to buy such a lens! i have got my Canon 400 F2.8 II IS up for sale to fund purchase of the lens. what a disappointment.



---

I'm not the one making those lenses. THOSE were in looooong development WAY BEFORE we ever sold that VAAASTLY SUPERIOR Stills and InterFrame/IntraFrame video codec of ours to the said company! The Powers-That-Be in that company want to make a BIG STATEMENT in Combined Stills/Video camera tchnology. It looks like they succeeded in TRUE LARGE SENSOR FORMAT Stills/Video imaging by a wide margin. What a System! The big boys of stills and video are not only going to surprised at the technology and feature set BUT ALSO UTTERLY SHOCKED AT ITS PRICE !!!


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 15, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Make an R-series-to-EF adapter using Optically-superb Acrylic elements! Give us that option!



And how, harry, is an EF mount camera going to control focus or aperture on an RF mount lens? You can't even manually focus the lens without electronic control from the camera.

Don't be so daft. There won't be any adaptors for RF to EF. It's about as likely to hit the market as your magic codec.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 15, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> There won't be any adaptors for RF to EF. It's about as likely to hit the market as your magic codec.



It’s vastly more likely than that!


----------



## deleteme (Dec 17, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> What happens when you normalize the other way (i.e., scale the MkIV up to 51MP)?


I haven't done that but judging from the noise in stretched shadows at high ISO on the mkIV I would expect it actually would fare poorly.
In the real world however, and printing at medium (up to 16x20) and smaller, both cameras would perform well and be indistinguishable from most any other camera.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 17, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> And how, harry, is an EF mount camera going to control focus or aperture on an RF mount lens? You can't even manually focus the lens without electronic control from the camera.
> 
> Don't be so daft. There won't be any adaptors for RF to EF. It's about as likely to hit the market as your magic codec.



===

I highly doubt Canon itself will make an RF to EF adapter...BUT... I do think someone like Wooden Camera might sell one as a package along with one of their Camera Cages and/or other accessories. In terms of focus and iris, they could put a control ring into the adapter itself for semi-automatic and full-automatic focus and iris control protocols which already have been reverse engineered from a technical point of view by Sigma and others.

The key issue is simply the ASTOUNDING QUALITY of the new Canon RF mount F/1.2 50mm lens! Any accessory manufacturer who can make an RF to EF/EF-S adapter at around $275 to $350 U.S., even IF it uses Acrylic corrective lens elements, WILL sell a bundle of them to all the VLOGGERS and prosumers who've got a ton of Full Frame Canon M50's and 5D's and ASP-C 7D and 6D cameras wanting to extend the lifespan of their cameras with higher end lenses that can TRANSITION to newer RF cameras once their old cameras finally die! This is a market EAGERLY WAITING to be served!

In fact, I expect within 6 months the first of RF-to-EF and RF-to-EF-S adapters to be coming out! Will they have separate control rings for BOTH iris and focus, AND ALSO neutral density filter holders or a turn-dial-form neutral density selector built-in? THEY SHOULD but we shall see what comes out and at what price point! The magic number for willing buyers SEEMS to be between $275 to $350 U.S.

I have to give Canon kudos, no matter what esle is coming out in the near future from others, I do must say that their first set of new lenses are UTTERLY SPECTACULAR and DESERVES every accolade given! So start on the truly high end RF mount 400mm 600mm, 800mm and 1200mm lenses! AND a super fast high end F/3.4-F/5 150mm-to-600mm or so SPORTS ACTION WILDLIFE zoom lens!


----------



## canonmike (Dec 17, 2018)

cpsico said:


> Another pointless megapixel race, without IBIS,high dynamic range and and flawless working Eye detection this seems overkill.


You may have a point here but let's see what happens with next body before we condemn it. It seems we want a home run every time at bat.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 17, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> I highly doubt Canon itself will make an RF to EF adapter...BUT... I do think someone like Wooden Camera might sell one as a package along with one of their Camera Cages and/or other accessories. In terms of focus and iris, they could put a control ring into the adapter itself for semi-automatic and full-automatic focus and iris control protocols which already have been reverse engineered from a technical point of view by Sigma and others.



Sorry Harry, you're completely barking mad on this. 

If you are desperately trying to hold onto the dream that some day maybe you'll be able to use the glorious RF glass on an EF body then by all means continue to delude yourself.

It won't happen. Canon would never do it. They want to transition everyone over to RF as soon as possible.
Wooden Camera? They almost certainly haven't got the experience to reverse engineer the RF protocol.
Sigma? They almost certainly haven't reverse engineered the RF protocol yet. Remember it took them DECADES to get the EF mount right (something that Tamron still haven't 100% figured out with some of their lenses not working on the adapted R, and they couldn't even get the EF-M protocols right).

The RF protocol is far more complex than EF. For all we know it may require signed authentication between lens and body, and/or have an encrypted communication channel. 

The only way you'll ever be able to adapt an RF lens to work on an EF camera is if you stick an EOS R on the hotshoe.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 17, 2018)

Then maybe user will just have to MANUALLY focus


jolyonralph said:


> Sorry Harry, you're completely barking mad on this.
> 
> If you are desperately trying to hold onto the dream that some day maybe you'll be able to use the glorious RF glass on an EF body then by all means continue to delude yourself.
> 
> ...


----------



## rjbradbury (Dec 17, 2018)

Currently I am still working with 5D Mark II bodies. Great cameras but I get it, tech has moved on.

I had the opportunity to shoot with a 5DsR for half a week for free so took it. Man it's good, the resolution and detail were great but the AF and other features were just as nice for me. I can see a 5Ds being added to the kit in the future as I don't think the 5DsR is worth it for my work.

But 75mp on a 35mm format is just too much. You have to take care shooting the 5Ds/R so with 75mp it's going to further limit its usability, and for me personally over 50mp = going medium format.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Then maybe user will just have to MANUALLY focus



Strike one - what do the extra pins do on the RF Mount? These are extra to the EF mount, in other words, the EF mount is a subset of the RF Mount. You can use a subset in a superset, but not a superset in a subset 

Strike two - the focal distance. EF lenses focus on a plane further away than the RF Mount does. That means, put an EF lens on a RF body and it focuses behind the sensor. Put an RF Lens on an EF body and it focuses in front of the sensor. You can easily add a spacer on a RF body to allow an EF lens to focus properly, but you can not take one away (because there is none) to allow an RF lens to focus on an EF body. To do this, you need to add a series of lens elements between the end of the RF lens and it’s focal plane, and with the tight geometry on RF lenses, this is a virtually impossible task that would at best greatly degrade the image quality.

Strike three - you still have not given me a ride in your helicopter


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 18, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Then maybe user will just have to MANUALLY focus



Which, if you had been paying attention and/or actually understood what you're talking about, you would know they can't do that because RF lenses have focus-by-wire systems meaning you have to decode and understand the RF protocols even to manually focus the lens.

Lens technology has come on a long time since the days of simply pulling one line on the interface low to signal that the focus should move in a specific direction.

Give it up Harry, you are really out of your depth on this one.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 19, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Which, if you had been paying attention and/or actually understood what you're talking about, you would know they can't do that because RF lenses have focus-by-wire systems meaning you have to decode and understand the RF protocols even to manually focus the lens.
> 
> Lens technology has come on a long time since the days of simply pulling one line on the interface low to signal that the focus should move in a specific direction.
> 
> Give it up Harry, you are really out of your depth on this one.



===

I am quite aware that RF lenses are focus-by-wire! I am ALSO WELL AWARE that I can put a bunch of probes between the pins and see what the O'Scope says. I am assuming some pulse width modulation as the underlying schema. Even IF there was encryption (probably cheap but fast FEAL-NX from NTT Japan), I can always put in my own Man-in-the-Middle chip to sign my own packets/commands with my own digital signature and send them to the lens controller chip once I figure out whether or not encryption is used. I can put an expert system on the problem using a bunch of GPU graphics cards to do the signals-oriented number crunching, since we already know the GENERAL protocols of Canon lenses and can have the expert system figure out which set of PWM signals mean what and for when. It would take our engineering team maybe three months to do, since we can go and buy 20 of the new cameras and function-by-function figure what modulated signal expresses what effect on the lens and then build up a lookup table to duplicate all the functionality and NOT fall afoul of any of Canon's Patents!

It is NOT THAT HARD !!! Spend some money! $75,000 is NOT a big deal for a company to buy some cameras and some Gigahertz scopes to decode a communications protocol!

---

In terms of lens elements, if they're high refractive index and optical-sciences classes of Acrylic, then you might get a 1/8th or less stop of light loss, so that F/1.2 50mm become F/1.3 instead! Still a bargain for the $2300 price to make your DSLR 1Dx and 5D, 6D and 7D series last a few more years until Canon comes out with their 75 megapixel RF monster ...OR...you finally capitulate and buy our high frame rate 50 megapixel 16-bits per channel Medium Format large sensor system instead!


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 19, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Even IF there was encryption (probably cheap but fast FEAL-NX from NTT Japan), I can always put in my own Man-in-the-Middle chip to sign my own packets/commands with my own digital signature and send them to the lens controller chip once I figure out whether or not encryption is used.



More probably a new encryption protocol, so it would be patented, and any 3rd party lens implementing it would be pulled off the market for patent violation. That would provide for 20 years of protection - about half the lifetime of the EF mount.

IIRC, I've read somewhere part of the problem is Canon cameras are "too familiar" with the lenses, e.g. how each lens's focus engine responds to commands (how far it moves the focus). This means if a 3rd party lens pretends to be a specific Canon lens, it has to imitate that lens' engine response, and apparently that's not so easy.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> More probably a new encryption protocol, so it would be patented, and any 3rd party lens implementing it would be pulled off the market for patent violation. That would provide for 20 years of protection - about half the lifetime of the EF mount.
> 
> IIRC, I've read somewhere part of the problem is Canon cameras are "too familiar" with the lenses, e.g. how each lens's focus engine responds to commands (how far it moves the focus). This means if a 3rd party lens pretends to be a specific Canon lens, it has to imitate that lens' engine response, and apparently that's not so easy.



It’s not a problem,it’s an advantage. By knowing how fast elements accelerate and the amount of movement needed to get to the focus position, you can accelerate the lens element right up to the point where you need to apply braking, resulting in the shortest time possible to move that element. Obviously, canon has this data for thief lenses and is not going to determine it for Tamron or Sigma lenses and load it into their firmware.

As a result, Second party lenses have to pick the closest profile. They get close to the desired performance. As well, when the camera commands the lens, it sends “move X focus units”, and the second party makers lens will interpret that number as appropriate for its lens. This mitigates most of the hunting for focus.

As to encryption, this is HIGHLY unlikely. You lock out other manufacturers and you have every store clerk on the planet telling customers not to buy Canon because they don’t work on other lenses. That would be a sales catastrophe.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> It’s not a problem,it’s an advantage. By knowing how fast elements accelerate and the amount of movement needed to get to the focus position, you can accelerate the lens element right up to the point where you need to apply braking, resulting in the shortest time possible to move that element.



I did not mean this is a problem for Canon, but rather for other manufacturers who need to "get close to the desired performance".



Don Haines said:


> As to encryption, this is HIGHLY unlikely. You lock out other manufacturers and you have every store clerk on the planet telling customers not to buy Canon because they don’t work on other lenses. That would be a sales catastrophe.



What I meant was, *if* Canon wanted to block other manufacturers from making EOS-R lenses, standard encryption wasn't the best way of doing it.

Then again, if Canon thought 3rd party lenses were good for Canon, wouldn't it make the mount specification open?


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 19, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I did not mean this is a problem for Canon, but rather for other manufacturers who need to "get close to the desired performance".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



===

Encryption takes TIME and POWER and lenses won't have the digital signal processing horsepower to implement a higher-level AES-256 type of algorithm. Canon will use something like a bunch of internally-designed bitwise XOR-and-NOT-commands as an encryption protocol OR maybe just use FEAL-NX which is good enough AND FAST, easily workable on 16-bit controller processors! It's not that hard to implement Feal-NX and any relevant key management system to just use your own signatures to send commands.

From an engineering point of view, I would say a company like Sigma could buy 10 of the RF cameras and assign some science interns to record on a scope what each signal set means from the various cameras so they can find out the general protocol which will LIKELY be a superset of the current Canon lens communications protocols. They could do it in about six months if they hire enough interns and buy them all scopes!

In the USA, a clean-room-based, WELL DOCUMENTED reverse engineering program that implements a FUNCTIONALLY similar interface but NOT the exact design IS ALLOWED and is cannot have a patent-lawsuit applied to it. Canon CANNOT sue Sigma for implementing it's own chip that sends PWM signals to a lens. It CAN sue Sigma if the chip's software uses nearly identical microcode! This is Why you implement using a DIFFERENT chip that uses a DIFFERENT instruction set but imitates the general functionality using a different physical design. That is perfectly fine to do patent-wise! Ergo, you can't patent a PWM signal (Pulse Width Modulation) or the IDEA of using a metal tube attached to a user-adjustable ring or wheel which starts and stops an electrical motor attached to a set of gears and a software interface!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Then again, if Canon thought 3rd party lenses were good for Canon, wouldn't it make the mount specification open?



The best situation for Canon is that they remain #1 in sales and that they sell all the lenses that are used on their cameras, but that is not going to happen. If they block third party lenses, then they loose camera sales, and then lens sales. As said above, if all the store clerks say not to buy Canon because they do not allow other lenses/accessories, sales plummet. And remember, it is the low end cameras and kit lenses that make up the vast bulk of sales. Most people buy a single camera and one or two bundled kit lenses. They are not going to throw that away to protect higher end lenses


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 20, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> In the USA, a clean-room-based, WELL DOCUMENTED reverse engineering program that implements a FUNCTIONALLY similar interface but NOT the exact design IS ALLOWED and is cannot have a patent-lawsuit applied to it.



Oh yes it can.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Oh yes it can.


Wikipedia lends support to Harry's assertion if done properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 21, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Oh yes it can.



===

You CANNOT PATENT AN IDEA !!! Period !!! I've done enough Patent Lawsuits to know that is the case!

You CAN PATENT the specific implementation of an idea!

RSA only patented a specific implementation of Powers of X being the base calculation for a numeric result. This means that RSA specifically used the MOD (Modulo) operator after a base number value is raised by a specific power. That modulo result is used for other parts of the algorithm. That is ABSOLUTELY FINE in that a specific order of math operations that is NOT well known by the general public or by someone knowledgeable in the art can result in a difficult-to-factor result. This specific implementation of encryption is MOST DEFINITELY PATENTABLE!

However, my FUNCTIONAL duplicate of this, allows me to create some OTHER software that ENCRYPTS DATA! So WHY, as a business person would I WANT to duplicate the exact algorithm of a competitor, when I want TO IMPLEMENT AN IDEA (i.e. Encrypt Data) but be able to do it faster or with needing less hardware resources! Ergo, I create a NEW encryption algorithm (i.e. ROTATE-DATA-768) that emulates the function (i.e. Encrypt/Decrypt data) but do it FASTER and WITH LESS hardware resources!

---

In terms of hardware, the specific design and layout of the individual gates, pathways and logic of a CPU chip to obtain a specific result is patentable. What is NOT patentable is the IDEA of using junctions, pathways and storage locations to create a CPU or GPU chip of any type or size! In my case, I DO NOT WANT to emulate the pathways of an Intel i9 chip! I have a much fancier layout that spreads simple asynchronous microcores for EVERY TYPE of math and character processing function amongst an entire substrate keeping the cores closest to the cache and long-term memory as possible.

Ergo, I make a chip that allows me to work on 128 different text strings up to 65,535 characters in length AT THE SAME TIME (i.e. in Parallel). This is IDEAL for massively parallel text search algorithms! OR...I add simple microcores that do nothing but add, subtract, multiply, divide, root, power, mod and XOR, OR, AND, NOT, REVERSE BITS, SPIN BITS for an array of 4096 64-bit integer numbers in parallel so I can do a fancy convolution filter in parallel on a single 4K line of 64-bit RGBA video or still image pixels. That is a NEW TYPE of SIMD command so it's patentable! (Not anymore though, since I just disclosed this NOW as being open source under the GNU GPL3 licence!)

Remember, even IN a clean room environment, you are implementing the DUPLICATION OF A FINAL RESULT, not of the process itself! Ergo, you use as much divergence of process as you require so that ANY REASONABLE PATENT EVALUATOR would conclude that while you are implementing the IDEA of say compression or encryption, that the PROCESS of that end result is different enough that you do not infringe on another competitor's patents. They key point is, that you ARE ALLOWED to emulate or duplicate PARTS of a process that are deemed NOT NOVEL or NEW.

i.e. You can "Quote" parts (i.e. a few sentences) of your competitors processes but you CANNOT plagiarize "Entire Paragraphs and Pages" of their work!
.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 21, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> As to encryption, this is HIGHLY unlikely. You lock out other manufacturers and you have every store clerk on the planet telling customers not to buy Canon because they don’t work on other lenses. That would be a sales catastrophe.



It also won't work for the simple fact that any 3rd party lens can pretend it's an EF lens. Given the RF mount pin layout it is extremely unlikely that the RF-EF adapter does anything other than pass EF signals through while adding control ring data on the new pins. The RF protocol could be a high level, serialized and encrypted data packet protocol sent exclusively over the new pins. That still leaves the "dumb" and reverse engineered EF mode.

Canon marketing can claim what they want about the RF protocol, I doubt it makes any practical real world difference in lens performance at the end of the day. The 28-70 f/2L exists because of mount distance to the sensor, not the RF protocol. So an EF protocol RF lens would work fine.

If the RF protocol is not encrypted...and possibly even if it is...it's open to reverse engineering.

I wish Canon would just openly license EF and RF protocols and put an end to speculation, 3rd party lens glitches, etc. Actively trying to suppress 3rd party lenses via strong encryption and/or patents would probably send me to another brand, though that would be well off into the future. (My current DSLR kit exceeds what I need for years to come.)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> It also won't work for the simple fact that any 3rd party lens can pretend it's an EF lens. Given the RF mount pin layout it is extremely unlikely that the RF-EF adapter does anything other than pass EF signals through while adding control ring data on the new pins. The RF protocol could be a high level, serialized and encrypted data packet protocol sent exclusively over the new pins. That still leaves the "dumb" and reverse engineered EF mode.
> 
> Canon marketing can claim what they want about the RF protocol, I doubt it makes any practical real world difference in lens performance at the end of the day. The 28-70 f/2L exists because of mount distance to the sensor, not the RF protocol. So an EF protocol RF lens would work fine.
> 
> ...


My bet is that the new pins on the mount add a high speed serial connection between camera and lens with differential inputs.

Also, odds are that all new info is through that serial link. It is highly unlikely that a pin would be dedicated to a specific function from a specific ring. The main advantage of the EF mount was getting rid of specific controls and replacing them with serial commands.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 23, 2018)

Again, even IF Canon is using encryption, I am pretty sure it will be basic like FEAL-NX (from NTT Japan) or even a simple bitwise XOR-NOT-XOR-based function. AND I am also pretty sure they will SUPERSET the commands of the EF mount rather than code an entirely new communications protocol. A third party manufacturer like Sigma or Wooden Camera would find it it fairly easy (i.e. within 6 months) to emulate the protocol in a non-patent infringing way.

It WOULD be preferable for Canon to do an RF-to-EF adapter itself. And my suggestion is for Canon is to slowly STRANGLE the EF lenses by changing the mount to RF at each scheduled lens update cycle.

By switching each each lens (i.e. 135mm, 85mm, 50mm, etc) to RF mount and no longer offering the EF equivalent, BUT supplying an ADAPTER for EF mount users, those users are FORCED to use and adapt to the new RF lenses which in my opinion is quite superior optically to EF lens. The user will slowly get used to the fast new glass and at the NEXT purchase cycle will simply buy an RF mount body anyways. The large circle will quite surprise users in that the image brightness is noticeably BETTER on the RF 50mm than the EF 50mm. I have PERSONALLY NOTICED that the f1/2 is DEFINITELY SHARPER in the centre! (we have had multi-hour access to review units!) Even with an adapter, you're looking at only 1/8th to 1/4 stop of light loss depending upon your iris setting in our estimation. So the lens only become an f1.3 -- SO WHAT!!! -- It is NOT that big of a deal when you can get a noticeably superior lens on a EF body!

Sooooo, Wooden Camera and Sigma had better start cooking for making both RF to EF adapters and/or make some NEW large mount RF lenses!

One thing that is a MUST is focus control rings, iris control rings AND insertable or dial-selectable neutral density filers are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for any adapters!


----------



## dilbert (Dec 23, 2018)

I am not Harry Film.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 23, 2018)

dilbert said:


> I am not Harry Film.



---

AND....I am NOT Bombastic Bob either!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2018)

dilbert said:


> I am not Harry Film.


Quite. Harry is very positive and enthusiastic.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Quite. Harry is very positive and enthusiastic.


And even under the nastiest attack, Harry remains polite. Plus, Harry has a helicopter! If he ever lands that helicopter in my back yard, I’m taking him out for a beer and to hear his stories.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 23, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Again, even IF Canon is using encryption, I am pretty sure it will be basic like FEAL-NX (from NTT Japan) or even a simple bitwise XOR-NOT-XOR-based function.



I wouldn't bet on that. AES and the various public/private key algorithms are well within reach of embedded, low power processors transmitting small amounts of data (i.e. camera/lens protocol). If Canon RF lenses communicate via a high level, serialized channel over the new pins the packets could use strong encryption.

If Canon doesn't etch those keys into the silicon itself, with no read out capability, then they can and will be discovered. But understand hiding the keys on the silicon is not a new thing (Apple's Secure Enclave). So it is possible the RF protocol is out of reach of 3rd party lens makers. I hope Canon is not that short sighted and greedy. But it is a possibility.



> It WOULD be preferable for Canon to do an RF-to-EF adapter itself. And my suggestion is for Canon is to slowly STRANGLE the EF lenses by changing the mount to RF at each scheduled lens update cycle.



I probably missed some earlier posts in regard to this discussion, but isn't the mount distance a problem going RF to EF? Any such adapter would have to include glass to compensate for the back of the lens being so far from the sensor. Doing the glass right so you maintain 90-95% of the original lens IQ would put the price close to the cheaper RF bodies (by the time they appear).


----------



## cpsico (Dec 23, 2018)

canonmike said:


> You may have a point here but let's see what happens with next body before we condemn it. It seems we want a home run every time at bat.


Even the 5DIV is an uphill battle to get sharp pictures at 30 megapixels at lower shutter speeds compared to a 20 Megapixel body. If the high pixel density is going to deliver benefits it must have either a IS lens or in body stabilization.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2018)

cpsico said:


> Even the 5DIV is an uphill battle to get sharp pictures at 30 megapixels at lower shutter speeds compared to a 20 Megapixel body. If the high pixel density is going to deliver benefits it must have either a IS lens or in body stabilization.


The pixels on a 5DIV are only 20% smaller than on a 1DXII so only a 20% increase in shutter speed would compensate or just downsizing by 20% should do the same.


----------



## cpsico (Dec 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The pixels on a 5DIV are only 20% smaller than on a 1DXII so only a 20% increase in shutter speed would compensate or just downsizing by 20% should do the same.


It feels like that 20 percent make it a good bit harder, it could be i am getting less steady as I get older but if i want maximum detail its the tripod or 2 or 3 times the reciprocal rule for me.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2018)

cpsico said:


> It feels like that 20 percent make it a good bit harder, it could be i am getting less steady as I get older but if i want maximum detail its the tripod or 2 or 3 times the reciprocal rule for me.


20% is very little. It means using a shutter speed of a 1/200s instead of 1/160s, 1/50s instead of 1/40s etc for 30mpx instead of 20mpx.


----------



## Dreamwalker Photography (Dec 24, 2018)

Let us hope that an R-body replacement for the 5DSR will at least be a professional body (e.g., 5D or 1D) and not the amateur offering the current R body is.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 28, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I wouldn't bet on that. AES and the various public/private key algorithms are well within reach of embedded, low power processors transmitting small amounts of data (i.e. camera/lens protocol). If Canon RF lenses communicate via a high level, serialized channel over the new pins the packets could use strong encryption.
> 
> If Canon doesn't etch those keys into the silicon itself, with no read out capability, then they can and will be discovered. But understand hiding the keys on the silicon is not a new thing (Apple's Secure Enclave). So it is possible the RF protocol is out of reach of 3rd party lens makers. I hope Canon is not that short sighted and greedy. But it is a possibility.
> 
> ...



---

Flange distance is definitely a problem! I think it's 44m for the EF (full frame) and EF-S (APS-C) mount and the RF is 20 mm, the EF-M (M5) is 18mm
so a diopter would be needed in the adapter itself.

HOWEVER! The KEY issue is using Glass versus High Refractive Index Acrylic (i.e. plastic lens) which will make it VIABLE for Canon, Wooden Camera, etc to offer an RF to EF mount converter WITH the built-in Neutral Density Filter slot-based or dial-in setup AND with focus and iris ring controls at an acceptable price point!

Using High Refractive Index Acrylic plastic allows a manufacturer to PRESS MOLD the diopter shape and then to use fully automated buffing to get the surface clarity needed for such a RF-to-EF converter at only $275 US (230 Euros) to $350 US (280 Euros) for the entire adapter! Doing the diopter piece out of glass would bring the price to more than $1000 US (750 Euros)!

Plastic lenses are so much clearer nowadays, and if they are coated with thin-film, optically-clear ceramics to toughen the surface of the lens against scratches and glare, then it would be quite easy to make such assembly very cost effective enough that consumers would be made very happy with such a high quality lens adapter at that magical $350 maximum price point!

So for Canon and Wooden Camera, I would DEFINITELY take a look at High Refractive Index Acrylic plastic for any diopter elements and PLEASE do add a drop-in or dial-based neutral density filter system AND proper iris and focus rings with easy-to-see, glow-in-the-dark markings and numbers!
.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Apr 17, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> I imagine that most CR readers are as unsurprised by this rumor as I am (not so much).
> 
> Exciting times ahead for photographers who have learned to trust Canon, and enticing times ahead for all of us (some non-Canon shooters) who know how to use these wonderful tools.
> 
> As I've posted previously here, I've postponed my purchase of the 11-24 EF lens--I'm looking forward to what Canon offers in the R mount wide-angle 'version'.


I was very much excited when I read a rumour about the development of a Canon RF 12-35mm f2.8L USM Lens along with some other wide angle lens on Canon Rumors a while ago but have heard nothing about it there after. Hope Canon will pay attention to this lens and surprise The pros. with its sudden announcement. A super wide Non Bulbous Lens like Nikon’s 14-30mm f4.
A better Super Wide lens in RF Range like 11-24mm f4 in EF Range.What do you or most Canon enthusiasts suggest or think.


----------

