# A high megapixel camera is coming [CR2]



## canonnews (Feb 21, 2022)

> A reliable source just whispered (thank you!) that Canon is coming out with a new camera.  The source said that the camera will be 75MP.   This has been long rumored since the RF mount came out.
> It’s no surprise that Canon is coming out with a high-megapixel camera.  Canon is pretty proud of the megapixel crown from the start of the digital era – they were not going to let Sony have that crown for long.
> No other details are known, but if I had to guess I would suspect it would be based upon the R5.
> We expect more information soon.



Continue reading...


----------



## entoman (Feb 21, 2022)

That would mean that the long-rumoured 90/100MP model was nothing more than a pipe-dream.

But 75MP would IMO be a much wiser choice:

Smaller file sizes
Faster burst speed
Larger buffer
Less need for a super-powerful and ultra-expensive processor
Less noise at high ISO

A few questions:

Will it have 8K?
Will it have the tilting screen preferred by many stills shooters?
Will it be more expensive than the R5C?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 21, 2022)

Day one purchase for me.


----------



## MiJax (Feb 22, 2022)

Its worth noting that this being the R5s is not guaranteed, it could very well be the other unicorn in the forecasted line up, the R1. The R1 is much more inline with the rumored pixel count.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

MiJax said:


> Its worth noting that this being the R5s is not guaranteed, it could very well be the other unicorn in the forecasted line up, the R1. The R1 is much more inline with the rumored pixel count.


Maybe, but I think the R1 is still some way off. I also think there's a possibility at least, that the R1 will be a dual-resolution camera, switchable between hi-res (80MP?) at low burst speeds, or uncropped lo-res (20MP?) with fast burst speeds and small file sizes. I'm no expert on the technicalities, but perhaps quad-pixel might allow this?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Maybe, but I think the R1 is still some way off. I also think there's a possibility at least, that the R1 will be a dual-resolution camera, switchable between hi-res (80MP?) at low burst speeds, or uncropped lo-res (20MP?) with fast burst speeds and small file sizes. I'm no expert on the technicalities, but perhaps quad-pixel might allow this?


Recent Leica rangefinder has multi resolution sensor which allows for improved DR at lower resolutions.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Recent Leica rangefinder has multi resolution sensor which allows for improved DR at lower resolutions.


I think this is the way forward. It will allow a single body to be used for hi-resolution professional work such as architecture, billboard, landscape etc, none of which need fast fps; and for low resolution work such as sports, action and events, which often need fast fps but also need small file sizes for rapid transmission and processing.


----------



## Finn (Feb 22, 2022)

I hope its a highly tuned 75MP sensor with 16-bit readout and a tilt screen instead of a flip out. That would be an excellent FF landscape camera for Canon. Don't compromise image quality for fast shutter or FPS.

I would rather see something that competes against Fuji MF.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

MiJax said:


> Its worth noting that this being the R5s is not guaranteed, it could very well be the other unicorn in the forecasted line up, the R1. The R1 is much more inline with the rumored pixel count.


I doubt it.
Simply because the R1 will most likely do HQ 8K and without a time limit. it would make much more sense being around 45MP for that.

This high MP version will most likely have just basic video functions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think this is the way forward. It will allow a single body to be used for hi-resolution professional work such as architecture, billboard, landscape etc, none of which need fast fps; and for low resolution work such as sports, action and events, which often need fast fps but also need small file sizes for rapid transmission and processing.


Why would Canon want to sell you one camera that does everything when they could sell you two cameras that each do half of everything?


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Maybe, but I think the R1 is still some way off. I also think there's a possibility at least, that the R1 will be a dual-resolution camera, switchable between hi-res (80MP?) at low burst speeds, or uncropped lo-res (20MP?) with fast burst speeds and small file sizes. I'm no expert on the technicalities, but perhaps quad-pixel might allow this?


Canon did something like this with the M6 Mark II but they cropped the sensor down to 18mp. So it's certainly probable that they could do something.
when you think about it, sRAW and sRAW 2 weren't that far off from that.
Quad pixel wouldn't help - it would actually be the reverse. as if it's 75MP quad that's 300M actual pixels.

But since the R5 can do around 20fps full raw, I would expect this to reach around 12fps which is entirely respectable for most shooting.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would Canon want to sell you one camera that does everything when they could sell you two cameras that each do half of everything?


Not everyone, including pros, can afford to buy two of the latest generation of cameras. Many will place greater importance on buying extra (or better) lenses, and will often have one high end body, plus a cheap RP or R as an emergency backup.

But for those who *can* afford two hi-end bodies, it can make a lot of sense if they are identical. There will be many people who want a pair of identical bodies that can serve both for ultra hi-res and action, by simply switching resolution modes. The controls and operation of both bodies will be identical, eliminating any muscle-memory issues.

And, if one of those bodies fails or has to go in for service, you can still shoot any type of project with the identical second body. If you have two different bodies, that may not be possible.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Quad pixel wouldn't help - it would actually be the reverse. as if it's 75MP quad that's 300M actual pixels.


Do you think a 75MP quad with 300M actual pixels is beyond Canon's technology?


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> A few questions:
> Will it have 8K?
> Will it have the tilting screen preferred by many stills shooters?
> Will it be more expensive than the R5C?


I think that all cameras with >45mp will have some form of 8k. Whether it is oversampled from 75mp or crop is a different story. Thermal limits will be challenging though for oversampling as IBIS would be mandatory.

To my mind, the only shooters that prefer a tilting screen is for street photography to be discrete. A flippy screen does everything else in portrait or landscape or vlogger or street if you want to. A combination tilt/flip could be an alternative though.

The Z9's price is a challenge for Canon/Sony. Not sure if Canon will ignore it or not.

With R5 @ USD3900 and R5c @ USD4500, people who were almost satisfied with R5 are prepared to spend USD600 more for the video features they need. 

The example from the past was 5Div @ USD3500, 5DS @USD3700 and 5DSR @ USD3900 so up to USD400 difference depending on the AA filter. The R5s won't be a volume seller though


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Do you think a 75MP quad with 300M actual pixels is beyond Canon's technology?


it would slow down AF. but on a landscape orientated camera that's probably not the worst thing.
as far as FPS,etc .. not really because the pixels are summed at the pixel level.

Also, stacked sensor could be used in this case, to increase effeciency.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> To my mind, the only shooters that prefer a tilting screen is for street photography to be discrete. A flippy screen does everything else in portrait or landscape or vlogger or street if you want to. A combination tilt/flip could be an alternative though.


I don't shoot street, but I prefer a tilting screen (or better still, a Panasonic-style tilting/articulated screen). It's *much* easier to follow a moving subject with a tilting screen because it's on-axis with the lens and you don't have to take your eyes off-axis. I find this applies particularly when using a camera at ground level, following the movement of an insect or small animal, which is quite difficult with an articulating screen. The only downside is that tilting screens can't be reversed to protect the glass (again this doesn't apply to Panasonic-style screens).


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The Z9's price is a challenge for Canon/Sony. Not sure if Canon will ignore it or not.
> 
> With R5 @ USD3900 and R5c @ USD4500, people who were almost satisfied with R5 are prepared to spend USD600 more for the video features they need.


My guess is that Canon originally intended to price the R5C closer to USD5000, but the aggressive pricing of the Z9 caused them to be more realistic.

If this new camera is "just* a 75MP stills-orientated R5 that shoots at lower burst speeds, then I'd expect it to be below the price of the R5C.

But if it turns out to equal the Z9 in speed, has 8K video and a gripped body, it would be a "R1" and I think anything below USD 6000 would be wishful thinking.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 22, 2022)

Well, the pixel density would be fairly close to the 32 mpx APS-C sensor in one of the M bodies. So it's highly feasible. 
Could be interesting.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 22, 2022)

Just to make everyone's head explode: It's the R7. 75MP crop body. I don't even have to travel to Central America now, I can just photograph the tropical birds from my porch in Massachusetts


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

shoot that with the 1200 F8L and a few teleconvertors and NASA wasted 10 billion on the james webb


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 22, 2022)

Nice! I am waiting for details on an potential R7, an R1, and an RF 135L. A high megapixel camera would be nice, but it would have to be very seriously out perform or match the utility of the R5 to even be considered by me right now.


----------



## John Wilde (Feb 22, 2022)

Canon made an official development announcement for a 120MP DSLR in 2015, so they have had plenty of time to work on high megapixels.


----------



## NKD (Feb 22, 2022)

Better late than never. Lets hope they nail its like the 5dsR!
R3 body please 

75mp is perfect - give us 15+ stops & posibly 4k30fps if I ever needa grab a rare quick video for an architect. Just dont leave it too late or i'll be jumping to the GFX. This will also be a pre-release purchase for me just like the 5dsR that was a good investment for 7-8+ year life cycle

Will be using my DSRLs until this comes out.. keep the TS-E lens - possibly grab a 24 100 RF zoom, then the 100-500 that looks mouth watering..


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Maybe, but I think the R1 is still some way off. I also think there's a possibility at least, that the R1 will be a dual-resolution camera, switchable between hi-res (80MP?) at low burst speeds, or uncropped lo-res (20MP?) with fast burst speeds and small file sizes. I'm no expert on the technicalities, but perhaps quad-pixel might allow this?


It theoretically can.
The camera you described is the OM-1 but that interestingly achieves 80 MP through pixel shift instead of using the quad Bayer resolution.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 22, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Canon made an official development announcement for a 120MP DSLR in 2015, so they have had plenty of time to work on high megapixels.


IIRC all the high megapixel sensors Canon has shown were APS-H, so in full frame you'd get even more pixels.


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Not everyone, including pros, can afford to buy two of the latest generation of cameras. Many will place greater importance on buying extra (or better) lenses, and will often have one high end body, plus a cheap RP or R as an emergency backup.
> 
> But for those who *can* afford two hi-end bodies, it can make a lot of sense if they are identical. There will be many people who want a pair of identical bodies that can serve both for ultra hi-res and action, by simply switching resolution modes. The controls and operation of both bodies will be identical, eliminating any muscle-memory issues.
> 
> And, if one of those bodies fails or has to go in for service, you can still shoot any type of project with the identical second body. If you have two different bodies, that may not be possible.


Spot on... Our staff has 3 bodies with them. Norm is to wear two, with two different lenses and the 3rd is the backup- If the r1 Becomes a reality. Every kit will have 3 R1's in them


----------



## Berowne (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> shoot that with the 1200 F8L and a few teleconvertors and NASA wasted 10 billion on the james webb


And no need to cool down to 6° K


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 22, 2022)

Too many MP for me, but I am happy for those in need and desire


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> shoot that with the 1200 F8L and a few teleconvertors and NASA wasted 10 billion on the james webb





Berowne said:


> And no need to cool down to 6° K



But will that body have an IR sensor? 
That might be annoying to those doing normal photog


----------



## yeahright (Feb 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would Canon want to sell you one camera that does everything when they could sell you two cameras that each do half of everything?


because they could make it two and a half times as expensive


----------



## sanj (Feb 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would Canon want to sell you one camera that does everything when they could sell you two cameras that each do half of everything?


Fear of shareholders. Because other companies will offer the feature.


----------



## sanj (Feb 22, 2022)

Why do people want more than 50 mpex on 35mm? Honest question. Thx.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Feb 22, 2022)

Interesting. If FF it would produce 29MP crop stills at Canon's usual 1.6X.

Your new £20,000 1200mm f/8 lens is now a 1920mm lens at 29MPs.

Bargain!


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Feb 22, 2022)

Using the "pixel" tech in EOS 90D/M6 Mark II should lead to about 82Mp. But we're used to see Canon making specific decisions/conceptions on new products, so maybe 75Mp could also be the right guess.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 22, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Using the "pixel" tech in EOS 90D/M6 Mark II should lead to about 82Mp. But we're used to see Canon making specific decisions/conceptions on new products, so maybe 75Mp could also be the right guess.


That sensor has a really slow readout speed, even in the cropped, 10-bit capture mode on the M6II you still get severe rolling shutter artefacts.
While I would appreciate the resolution bump, I wouldn't trade in my R5 for a camera with such a sensor.


----------



## GMAX (Feb 22, 2022)

Canon: Take my Pre-Order. My 5DS is longing for retirement


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 22, 2022)

After all these years of waiting, rumours of high MP Canon cameras now make be laugh. The echo chamber effect of the internet where by they sually appear when there are no interesting cameras rumoured for release.

No substance, no time frame, not happening is my view of Canons high MP R camera.


----------



## Joules (Feb 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Why do people want more than 50 mpex on 35mm? Honest question. Thx.


Capturing as much detail as possible per shot is one use case, like for landscape photography.

The other prominent one is birds/wildlife, where it is advantageous to capture sufficient detail to allow deep crops while having the wider FF framing in the EVF for easier tracking.

Not to mention that with the exception of the 7D series, APS-C Canon bodies are lacking in terms of ergonomics compared to FF ones. So getting the reach of APS-C (which in reality is just the reach of high density sensors, rather than any particular sensor size) with FF ergonomics seemingly will require the purchase of a high res FF body.

It will be interested how the R7 fits into this situation, if and when it releases.


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 22, 2022)

> The example from the past was 5Div @ USD3500, 5DS @USD3700 and 5DSR @ USD3900 so up to USD400 difference depending on the AA filter. The R5s won't be a volume seller though



Wow - in the UK it was completely the opposite - the 5Ds was about £500 cheaper than the 5D4.


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Why do people want more than 50 mpex on 35mm? Honest question. Thx.


Having had an H6d 100C here for a while with an HTS1.5 tilt/shift adapter, I'm rather liking working with 100MP images on occasions
So, yes please - for my 5Ds replacement as well, since the H6D will be going back to Hasselblad at some point
I sometimes stitch multiple 5Ds shots to get resolution - it would be nice to have more available in one shot (oh, and some new T/S lenses as well ;-) )

75 and well implemented sensor shift high res would be nice - I really liked the S1R when I had one here to test

I appreciate it's not something many want, but I've never stepped up in resolution with a new camera and thought 'that's too much'


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2022)

Or a 5DMkV is coming to help us retire our 5DMkIV and 5DsR cameras 

OK joking but it's a rumors site after all


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 22, 2022)

Im likely a minority but as with the 5DS that I still have and use, a 75mp version of the R5 should be aimed at photographers and not worry about 8K. The videographers are well catered for with the R5 and the R5c so why do they need a third R5 series camera? 
The 5DS / 5DSr were favourites with landscape photographers and studio photographers and its the latter where Ive used the 5DS. This camera was better damped than the standard 5D MKIII and MKIV and had other improvements over the 5D MKIII it was based on all aimed at photographers.
Ive never shot a single clip of video on my Canon DSLRs or mirrorless cameras and Im sure Im not alone. I do shoot video but much prefer dedicated video cameras than compromises to be able to do both. 
So based on the 5DS experience, mirrorless experience with the EOS R and R6 heres what I would like to see. 
1. Better ISO than the 5DS provided
2. Better cable management for thethered shooting 
3. Two CF express slots (75mp your need them) 
4. Higher strobe sync speed 
5. Same FPS as the R5 / R6 in both mechanical & electronic shutter

Other than that I think the AF, metering, button & control layout should stay the same as the R5 and I could see fashion, food & landscape professional photographers buying it in droves.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

You will need wide glass to make the most of 75 Mpx, like the RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. The diffraction limited aperture will be f/5.5 compared with f/7.1 of the R5. If I got one, I would for my bird photography pair it with an RF 500/4 if they could make it light enough. I previously noticed in practice that the 90D with its sensor equivalent to 82 Mpx FF and DLA of f/5.2 showed an f/4 400mm pulling ahead of a f/5.6 400mm relative to even the 5DSR. 
If they removed the AA-filter, which becomes less important as Mpx increase, then that by itself would make an increase in resolution.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 22, 2022)

keithcooper said:


> 75 and well implemented sensor shift high res would be nice - I really liked the S1R when I had one here to test
> 
> I appreciate it's not something many want, but I've never stepped up in resolution with a new camera and thought 'that's too much'


I personally feel the only way Canon is going to give us a high resolution camera is via some sort of sensor shift technology with a more likely (for Canon) lower resolution sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would Canon want to sell you one camera that does everything when they could sell you two cameras that each do half of everything?


You took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## LeedsCalling (Feb 22, 2022)

I would like a high megapixel camera with basic video. I want a fantastic stills camera and don't need video so why should I have no choice to have it and pay for it


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 22, 2022)

LeedsCalling said:


> I would like a high megapixel camera with basic video. I want a fantastic stills camera and don't need video so why should I have no choice to have it and pay for it


Because 'you' are not a big enough market... ;-)


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth!


Check my reply to neuro, and check the reply from Goldwing


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

keithcooper said:


> I've never stepped up in resolution with a new camera and thought 'that's too much'


We all have different needs.

Most wedding, events, sports and portrait photographers don't seem to have a need or desire for more than about 20-24MP. Wildlife photographers commonly see 36-45MP as the "sweet spot". Architectural, landscape, and billboard photographers want as much as they can get.

As I commented in an earlier post, I think dual resolution is the way forward, giving users the option to switch between say 80MP and uncropped 20MP simply by toggling a custom button. That way almost everyone gets what they want in a single body.


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2022)

Gazwas said:


> I personally feel the only way Canon is going to give us a high resolution camera is via some sort of sensor shift technology with a more likely (for Canon) lower resolution sensor.


Oh no!! There will be people who will think that they should be able to use this technology for birding and that Canon would be slow if it could not!


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Wildlife photographers commonly see 36-45MP as the "sweet spot".


Maybe - until sony showed what 61MP can do. there's no sweet spot for providing more pixels on a target and allowing for more reach.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

Gazwas said:


> I personally feel the only way Canon is going to give us a high resolution camera is via some sort of sensor shift technology with a more likely (for Canon) lower resolution sensor.


The Canon 32.5MP class heading resolution APS-C sensor waves hello to you. That's is basically the same as 82MP on a full frame sized sensor.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Maybe - until sony showed what 61MP can do. there's no sweet spot for providing more pixels on a target and allowing for more reach.


Among the roughly 20 Sony wildlife photographers that I personally know, 2 of them use the 50MP a1, and the rest all use the 24MP a9 and a9ii.

The 61MP a7Riv seems to be mostly bought by landscape photographers. Just a personal observation of a limited sample, of course.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> We all have different needs.
> 
> Most wedding, events, sports and portrait photographers don't seem to have a need or desire for more than about 20-24MP. Wildlife photographers commonly see 36-45MP as the "sweet spot". Architectural, landscape, and billboard photographers want as much as they can get.
> 
> As I commented in an earlier post, I think dual resolution is the way forward, giving users the option to switch between say 80MP and uncropped 20MP simply by toggling a custom button. That way almost everyone gets what they want in a single body.


45 to 50 Mpx is the minimum for me nowadays. Anything less than that is worse than a 20 Mpx APS-C. More than that, I'll have to see how it works out in practice. I didn't like the files from the 90D.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Why do people want more than 50 mpex on 35mm? Honest question. Thx.


Because they cannot afford more than that.  

I don't see any limit to the desire of more pixels - as long as they actually provide more detail, there's obviously no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, for example.

Of course for most uses 45 or 30 or even 20 megapixels are more than enough, but there are use cases where more is always better.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

50% happy - had hoped for 100 MPIX. Will still get it! Since I'm also into buying a car and a - ridiculously - expensive bike - this year, I'll certainly be doing my part keeping the economy running against all Covid and Ukraine odds.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> The Canon 32.5MP class heading resolution APS-C sensor waves hello to you. That's is basically the same as 82MP on a full frame sized sensor.


I don’t know how quad pixel AF will work but the 75MP sensor rumour probably have more to do with the technology used in this system rather than the output resolution of the camera.

I just don’t think Canon sees high resolution as the future or that 120MP sensor from way back would have made an appearance by now. Speed, AF and video are what future Canon camera buyers want. When Canon jumps to 12K or 16K video resolutions is when we will see a massive bumps in stills camera resolution IMO.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 45 to 50 Mpx is the minimum for me nowadays. Anything less than that is worse than a 20 Mpx APS-C. More than that, I'll have to see how it works out in practice. I didn't like the files from the 90D.


Everything is a compromise and we all have different needs and priorities. Some prioritise high ISO, others prioritise resolution or DR, others prioritise fps. Unfortunately there is no "one size fits all". You say 45-50MP is your current minimum requirement, but a couple of days ago you were extolling the virtues of the 20MP OMI, and saying how good the 20MP Nikon D500 still is, which seems a little contradictory.

My view is that at any stage in the history of digital photography there will be a "sweet spot" beyond which there are diminishing returns. For you it's currently "45-50MP" which indicates you'd like more. For me, once we go above about 60MP there is more to be lost than to be gained, although technology will eventually overcome the issues :- 

Focusing accuracy, subject movement and camera-shake all suffer as MP increases, and have to be compensated for by developing better stabilisation, and better high ISO noise control to allow faster shutter speeds. There is also the issue of diffraction, once pixel density increases, although that may ultimately be solved by in-camera AI technology.

Another limiting factor on MP is the file sizes, which impact greatly on transmission and post-processing speed, although less so on storage capacity with 4TB or greater SSD hard drives available these days.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

NKD said:


> Better late than never. Lets hope they nail its like the 5dsR!
> R3 body please
> 
> 75mp is perfect - give us 15+ stops & posibly 4k30fps if I ever needa grab a rare quick video for an architect. Just dont leave it too late or i'll be jumping to the GFX. This will also be a pre-release purchase for me just like the 5dsR that was a good investment for 7-8+ year life cycle
> ...


Had some regrets having sold my 5DSR in anticipation of a high MPIX R comming out early after the R5/R6. But Covid severely limited my shooting opportunities, so maybe a good thing after all.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Focusing accuracy, subject movement and camera-shake all suffer as MP increases


None of this is true. 

You may be able to see technical faults better because you are tempted to zoom in more but at the same output size - which is the only thing that matters - high MPIX cameras are never a disadvantage - only possibly at an advantage.


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 22, 2022)

tapanit said:


> I don't see any limit to the desire of more pixels - as long as they actually provide more detail, there's obviously no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, for example.


Ah, outresolving lenses... comes up every time high MP is mentioned ;-)

I'm minded to suggest there is no 'obvious' about it - better sampling enables better processing if you _need/want_ it. In this instance, a rising tide does indeed float all boats - I've tested all kinds of old/new lenses and from a detail point of view, more MP to sample the lens output helps (other annoyances/inconveniences notwithstanding)

Particularly illuminating was seeing what difference the 180MP multishot mode of the S1R made with some of my older EF glass.

Now, there probably is a point where more MP just fills your cards quicker, but not [quite] yet ;-)


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

sanj said:


> Why do people want more than 50 mpex on 35mm? Honest question. Thx.


Apart from the obivious sharpness advantage: Ability to crop more, better noise control above lowest iso-levels and flexibility when shooting a prime lens (think shooting almost anything with a 35mm lens - from landscape to near-macro-flower shot) are probably the three main factors. The second of course becoming more important as we see people move much more into 400+ iso shooting than previously.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

Fischer said:


> None of this is true.
> 
> You may be able to see technical faults better because you are tempted to zoom in more but at the same output size - which is the only thing that matters - high MPIX cameras are never a disadvantage - only possibly at an advantage.


The whole point of high MP is that you *will* zoom in more (by cropping) or by enlarging, so you *will* see errors in focusing exagerrated, you *will* see subject movement exagerrated, and you *will* see camera-shake exagerrated.

What's the point in buying a high MP camera if you're only posting on instagram, and not utilising that extra resolution?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2022)

A few thoughts:

This is not an R1. Canon is nothing if not predictable. The R1 will have either equal or slightly higher resolution than the Z9.

Because Canon is predictable and consistent, this will likely be another variation on the R5, just as the high resolution 5Ds and 5Dsr were based on the 5D. 

Canon is not going to redesign their bodies to accommodate a different style flip screen. Not going to happen.

Beware of the buffer. The R5 can barely handle 45 mp. Generally okay for birds in flight, but it becomes a real problem with any kind of sports shooting. Even the R3 can run into buffer problems at the highest frame rate. I've gone exclusively to CRaw to reduce buffer issues. 

The buffer is another reason this will not be an R1. Just too much data to push through for sports shooters.

Don't expect any major feature improvements (such as quad pixel autofocus). Canon will reserve new features for the R1 and R5II. 

Where does Canon go with the R5II in two years or so? It seems like the resolutions are converging if this is 75mp and the R5II is...what...60mp? 

If the R7 comes to fruition, expect it to be about 29 mp and share the same sensor, just as the 5Ds and the 7DII.


----------



## Joules (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> The whole point of high MP is that you *will* zoom in more (by cropping) or by enlarging, so you *will* see errors in focusing exagerrated, you *will* see subject movement exagerrated, and you *will* see camera-shake exagerrated.
> 
> What's the point in buying a high MP camera if you're only posting on instagram, and not utilising that extra resolution?


But in those instances where you want to crop or enlarge to show more detail, you are absolutely at an advantage compared to a lower resolution sensor. After all, if you do select the right settings to maximize detail, you will get more of it compared to a lower resolution sensor with the same settings.

In other words, a higher resolution sensor will at worst match the results from a lower resolution one, and at best exceed them by providing enhanced details. Which does have use cases. But there is no compromise on image quality with high resolution shooting. And when you take pictures of something that you don't intend to crop or enlarge massively otherwise, you also don't need to select the settings to produce detail past what is actually needed. 

The only true downside to higher resolution are file size (which in turn negatively affects FPS, buffer depth, storage volume and post processing) and cost.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

Fischer said:


> 50% happy - had hoped for 100 MPIX. Will still get it! Since I'm also into buying a car and a - ridiculously - expensive bike - this year, I'll certainly be doing my part keeping the economy running against all Covid and Ukraine odds.


hahaha... me too! I thought it would be around 105, or something slightly over 100mp


----------



## Joules (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If the R7 comes to fruition, expect it to be about 29 mp and share the same sensor, just as the 5Ds and the 7DII.


Apart from similar pixel densities, those sensors have nothing in common. The 7D II is a dual pixel sensor, the 5Ds one is conventional.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> The whole point of high MP is that you *will* zoom in more (by cropping) or by enlarging, so you *will* see errors in focusing exagerrated, you *will* see subject movement exagerrated, and you *will* see camera-shake exagerrated.
> 
> What's the point in buying a high MP camera if you're only posting on instagram, and not utilising that extra resolution?


yes, but there is a lot of fallacies with that. an APS-C camera with Canon's 32.5MP is just as difficult as a 75MP+ full frame camera with the same lens. However people get horrified thinking about the full frame one moreso than the APS-C one.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

Gazwas said:


> I don’t know how quad pixel AF will work but the 75MP sensor rumour probably have more to do with the technology used in this system rather than the output resolution of the camera.
> 
> I just don’t think Canon sees high resolution as the future or that 120MP sensor from way back would have made an appearance by now. Speed, AF and video are what future Canon camera buyers want. When Canon jumps to 12K or 16K video resolutions is when we will see a massive bumps in stills camera resolution IMO.



That 120MP sensor DSLR though probably took a hit because Canon was internally switching to working on the RF mount, and then a 120MP sensor without DPAF would have been DOA.

Canon's been working on Quad for a long time now. I've lost count to how many of those patent applications I've reported on. There's been tons more I've seen, but for the life of me i couldn't describe the patent and unlike some sites (cough.. CW...) I try to always explain the patent application.

AF speed will be impacted the most. Image processing - no.

BUT - now that Canon can do stacked sensors, the world of opportunity is open, for Canon do to much faster processing of AF data actually on the sensor itself.

Canon is also doing tricks - for instance looking at ROI (Region of Interest) versus reading the entire sensor. That can help too.

but really a 75mp camera isn't going to be a speed demon and I really doubt it will be quad AF, as no matter how good Canon does the fab, it's less efficient than dual pixel AF in terms of DR, and this camera is meant for landscape aka high DR.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> The whole point of high MP is that you *will* zoom in more (by cropping) or by enlarging, so you *will* see errors in focusing exagerrated, you *will* see subject movement exagerrated, and you *will* see camera-shake exagerrated.
> 
> What's the point in buying a high MP camera if you're only posting on instagram, and not utilising that extra resolution?


I can see that you misunderstand the relationship between sensor resolution and camera output.

This discussion took off big time when the 5DS/R was released when several well reputed reviewers created confusion with claims such as these - until the dust settled and all serious reviewers contradicted their spurious claims. However, the myth seems to live on. I also blame Canon marketing for creating some of the confusion when they released the 5DS/R.

The only thing that counts is your output. The actual image you are viewing on screen, print etc. Either you are comparing two identical images or you are not. What end viewing result does one camera deliver compared to another? Nothing else matters. Ever.

If you compare _*the same image *_taken from a 1 - 20 -50 - 5000 MPIX picture there will be zero (0.0) more shake, zero (0.0) more subject movement and zero (0.0) more focus miss between them. Its simply not physically possible as all these three are optical properties and have nothing to do with sensor size. The larger pix picture will very often be sharper - and shooting at high MPIX is thus almost always an advantage - it can only never be a disadvantage in relation to these three issues. Not possible.

As for your second point about Instagram I am not sure why you are posting on a Canon forum, if this is the media you are interested in. An iphone is likely a better option for you. YMMV.

(I will not expand or continue this discussion on MPIX shake etc. as I cannot be bothered anymore, but refer to the explanations on normalized viewing sizes that you can find on the web and elsewhere if you want to learn more about how this works out in real life.)


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

Fischer said:


> I can see that you misunderstand the relationship between sensor resolution and camera output.
> 
> This discussion took off big time when the 5DS/R was released when several well reputed reviewers created confusion with claims such as these - until the dust settled and all serious reviewers contradicted their spurious claims. However, the myth seems to live on. I also blame Canon marketing for creating some of the confusion when they released the 5DS/R.
> 
> ...


You seem to misunderstand my attitude to high MP. For the record, I shoot on a 45MP R5 and I consider that to be the "sweet spot", the best compromise for my own genres and methods of shooting.

I'm most definitely NOT interested myself in instagram, Flickr, fbook or any other social media - until recently a lot of my work was published in books and/or magazines (for which 20MP incidentally is more than adequate), but for the last couple of years I've concentrated on images for my own personal use. Many such as BIF shots need to be heavily cropped as I prefer to leave space around the subject in the EVF to make them easier to follow in flight, which is why I use a 45MP camera instead of a 24MP model.

The explanations about exaggerated camera shake, subject movement and focus errors are referred to currently in various reviews and fora, and seem quite logical to me. If indeed they are myths that need to be exploded I'm happy to learn, but in addition to these and the file-size issues that you acknowledge, are you also telling me that the higher pixel density images resulting from more MP do not adversely affect noise and diffraction, or is that another "myth"?


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Everything is a compromise and we all have different needs and priorities. Some prioritise high ISO, others prioritise resolution or DR, others prioritise fps. Unfortunately there is no "one size fits all". You say 45-50MP is your current minimum requirement, but a couple of days ago you were extolling the virtues of the 20MP OMI, and saying how good the 20MP Nikon D500 still is, which seems a little contradictory.
> ...


I don't want to put words in Alan's mouth, but I think it is pretty obvious that he was referring to a FF camera when he gave 45-50 MP as his minimum. Less than that and you are getting less resolution than a 20 MP crop camera. So, not contradictory at all.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> yes, but there is a lot of fallacies with that. an APS-C camera with Canon's 32.5MP is just as difficult as a 75MP+ full frame camera with the same lens. However people get horrified thinking about the full frame one moreso than the APS-C one.


Perhaps the reason why people get horrified more about high MP FF is because those that buy them are likely to be more advanced users than those buying a 90D, and hence fussier?

Or perhaps it's just an irrational fear of high numbers, based on the widespread statements about perceived negative effects on noise, diffraction, camera shake, subject movement and focus accuracy.

There are so many conflicting claims and theories expounded on the internet that it's very difficult to distinguish fact from myth


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Everything is a compromise and we all have different needs and priorities. Some prioritise high ISO, others prioritise resolution or DR, others prioritise fps. Unfortunately there is no "one size fits all". You say 45-50MP is your current minimum requirement, but a couple of days ago you were extolling the virtues of the 20MP OMI, and saying how good the 20MP Nikon D500 still is, which seems a little contradictory.


There is nothing contradictory about it whatsoever - it's 100% completely consistent. The D500 is a *20 Mpx* *APS-C* not a 20 Mpx FF. It has the same resolution as the 45 Mpx FF Nikon D850. It's pixel density that determines resolution, not total Mpx. The Canon 7DII is another one of my favourite cameras and its 20 Mpx sensor pixel density is exactly the same as the 5DSR, which I also used a lot.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I don't want to put words in Alan's mouth, but I think it is pretty obvious that he was referring to a FF camera when he gave 45-50 MP as his minimum. Less than that and you are getting less resolution than a 20 MP crop camera. So, not contradictory at all.


Thanks. I didn't see this until after I posted my reply identical reply.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There is nothing contradictory about it whatsoever - it's 100% completely consistent. The D500 is a *20 Mpx* *APS-C* not a 20 Mpx FF. It has the same resolution as the 45 Mpx FF Nikon D850. It's pixel density that determines resolution, not total Mpx. The Canon 7DII is another one of my favourite cameras and its 20 Mpx sensor is exactly the same as the 5DSR, which I also used a lot.


Indeed, so let's concentrate on comparing low and high pixel-density for a given sensor size, i.e. FF. I'm not debating for the sake of pedantry, just trying to separate fact from popular myth. We are all here (I hope) to amicably exchange opinions and understand the truth about perceived facts.

Which if any of the following, in your view, are adversely affected when comparing hypothetical same-generation 20MP and 80MP FF sensors of similar technology, and when examining the final image occupying the entirety of e.g. an 8K monitor ? -

minor focus errors
subject movement
camera-shake
high ISO noise
diffraction-related softness
perceived edge sharpness
perceived fine detail


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> This is not an R1. Canon is nothing if not predictable. The R1 will have either equal or slightly higher resolution than the Z9.
> 
> ...


If they want to continue the R5 as a stills-focused hybrid body which shoots 8k raw, it would behoove them to continue with 45ish MP in order to make it as easy as possible from a processing sense to do that. You could imagine an R5 MKII having the 45 MP version of Canon's new stacked sensor in the R3, quad pixel (assuming an R1 comes before an R5 II), next gen IBIS, next gen DIGIC for better performance, faster bus for card performance/buffer, better heat performance (though still not limitless as with the R5C), etc. It wouldn't have to be as much of a leap over the R5 MKI as the R5 was over the 5D MKIV to be worthwhile.


----------



## iheartcanon (Feb 22, 2022)

I would not want to give up the flip out screen. However if they could figure a way to make it be able to either tilt OR flip out leaving you the choice, now that would be very cool.

Eith way, I'll be waiting for the R1 which will go nicely with my R5


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> are you also telling me that the higher pixel density images resulting from more MP do not adversely affect noise and diffraction, or is that another "myth"?


From the release of the 5DS/R and the later 5DIV we know that having more pixels can compensate for increased noise even compared to newer sensors when iso goes to around 400 and higher and invariance starts setting in. I expect this to continue to be the case.

My hope is thus, that a high MPIX R will be at least as good as the R5 at base level iso - because the 5DS/R was better noise wise than the 5DIII even at base iso. I see no obvious reason to expect less this time around.

Of course there is no way telling if history will repeat.

However, in practical terms I do not see that there is much straight forward to be said about the noise advantage of the higher and lower MPIX sensors that we as consumers actually get to buy. Its much more about comparing the characteristics of the relatively few sensors manufacturers are selling us at the time they are released to the market. And here the picture is far more blurred than simple theory suggests as demonstrated by comparing the 5DIII, 5DS/R and 5DIV. Still maybe a new 75 MPIX would prove worse noise wise than the existing R5 - its just not an obvious assumption.

Diffraction can be calculated and affects outputs at various f-stops as you can easily see by taking a picture at f/22 or higher.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Don't expect any major feature improvements (such as quad pixel autofocus). Canon will reserve new features for the R1 and R5II.


5DS/R came out with a lot of great new features compared to the 5DIII that later were incorporated in the following 5DIV. Why should this not repeat, if you think Canon is predictable, so that the high MPIX gets several new features compared to the R5 that will later go into a R5II?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 22, 2022)

yeahright said:


> because they could make it two and a half times as expensive


That did not work for the 1DC


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The R1 will have either equal or slightly higher resolution than the Z9


I would expect slightly higher than the a1.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> .... a sensor that can function as 20MP or 80MP would certainly be nice and I don't know of another model on the market that can do that. (In other words, have the dynamic range and low-light capability of a normal 20MP sensor, AND shooting speed etc., but also do 80MP as well).


There is a precedent - the Leica M11

"_At the heart of the new Leica M11 is a full-frame BSI CMOS sensor with Triple Resolution Technology. Raw image files in DNG format and JPEGs can be recorded at 60, 36 or 18 megapixels, always using the full sensor area. The 60-megapixel option delivers unprecedented image quality and detail resolution, exploiting the full optical potential of Leica’s latest APO Lenses for the M-System – whereas the lower resolutions enable faster camera performance, extended burst lengths, and smaller files_." - Photography Blog

So it's absolutely possible that this could be a feature of a forthcoming Canon RF camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 22, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> For 8-9 years or so, we had the EOS-1D and EOS-1Ds lines side by side. 1D was fast, lower pixel count, smaller sensor, and favored by sports and maybe some wildlife photographers. The 1Ds models were the highest resolution, maybe only half the shooting speed, but great for landscape and fine art work, and anyone who wanted the best resolution possible.
> 
> Personally I always had the 1Ds models.


And then Canon introduced the 5D2 with the same resolution as the 1Ds3 and the market collapsed for the 1Ds3. Nikon introduced a high MP D3x but replaced it with a D800, a much less expensive body.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Indeed, so let's concentrate on comparing low and high pixel-density for a given sensor size, i.e. FF. I'm not debating for the sake of pedantry, just trying to separate fact from popular myth. We are all here (I hope) to amicably exchange opinions and understand the truth about perceived facts.
> 
> Which if any of the following, in your view, are adversely affected when comparing hypothetical same-generation 20MP and 80MP FF sensors of similar technology, and when examining the final image occupying the entirety of e.g. an 8K monitor ? -
> 
> ...


It all depends on whether you are using the same lens on each and viewing at the same physical size in mm x mm or you are using different focal length lenses and are viewing the same scene cropped to the same number of pixels and differentially enlarged to the same metric size. And, it's not my view, it's the physics.

If you are using the same focal length lens and viewing at the same metric size, then: minor focus errors; subject movement; camera-shake; high ISO noise; and diffraction-related softness should all be near enough identical. Fine detail should be better for the high resolution sensor, but perceived edge detail may artefactually look lower because smooth transitions may lose their texture and look sharper on the lower Mpx sensor. If there are lens aberrations, high noise, excessive diffraction, movement, bad focus etc the difference in fine detail will decrease, but the high resolution sensor will never give poorer images than the lower.

If, say you are comparing a 80 Mp sensor with a 20 Mpx, which has 1/2 the resolution, and say use a lens of half the the focal length with the high resolution sensor, and look at a crop from the high Mpx blown up 2x to give the same number of pixels, then it is a different story, and will also depend on the f-number of the two lenses. In this case where the high Mpx image is blown up by a factor of two to be observed at the same metric size, then some of minor focus errors; camera-shake; and high ISO noise may be magnified by a factor of 2. If the shorter lens has the same f-number as the longer, the effects of diffraction will be doubled as well. At the very best, the details and sharpness of the twice magnified image from the high Mpx sensor will approach the quality of the lower resolution sensor with twice the focal length of lens.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Check my reply to neuro, and check the reply from Goldwing


I think you missed his point somewhat - I agree from a consumer's perspective your idea is appealing, but if it leads to fewer bodies being sold than segmenting the market, then Canon has no motivation to do it. They obviously want to maximise sales, whichever way they can.


----------



## landscaper (Feb 22, 2022)

Finally we are going to get our Long awaited R5s or Rs Camera Body !! 

I've been on the Waiting List for for over three tears 

I'll take TWO please 

Sad it won't have more Separation in Megapixel count from the R5 like the previously rumoured 100 Megapixel Camera 

Will let me print a higher resolutions on our Company's 60" Large Wide Format Printer

Sony will probably leap- Frog Canon with their 100 megapixel sensor that has Already been developed in 2019









Sony Made a 100MP and 6K Full-Frame Sensor for Consumer Cameras


It seems the race to launch a 100-megapixel full-frame sensor is on. Sony has reportedly developed a new 35mm full-frame CMOS sensor that shoots




petapixel.com





Fuji rumoured to be working with Sony to develop a 170 - 200 Megapixel Sensor 
Based on the Sensor Tec of their upcoming IMX555CQR Sensor 

Glad these Camera Giants are finally moving into Higher Resolution for those who can harness these Extra Pixels 

Canon Please step it up to the Magic 100 Megapixel Mark


----------



## cayenne (Feb 22, 2022)

Finn said:


> I hope its a highly tuned 75MP sensor with 16-bit readout and a tilt screen instead of a flip out. That would be an excellent FF landscape camera for Canon. Don't compromise image quality for fast shutter or FPS.
> 
> I would rather see something that competes against Fuji MF.


Well, to compete with Fuji Medium Format (Digital), the GFX line, Canon is going to have to start making MF sized sensors.

MP alone doesn't a MF make...you gotta have a bigger sensor with more pixels too.....

I'd LOVE to see Canon dip their toe into digital MF....but not holding my breath on that one...

Blue is not my best facial tone.

C


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Finally we are going to get our Long awaited R5s or Rs Camera Body !!
> 
> I've been on the Waiting List for for over three tears


Ambiguous: In your jeans or crying?


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I think you missed his point somewhat - I agree from a consumer's perspective your idea is appealing, but if it leads to fewer bodies being sold than segmenting the market, then Canon has no motivation to do it. They obviously want to maximise sales, whichever way they can.


I agree entirely that from Canon's perspective, segmentation is beneficial.

It's probably just wishful thinking on the part of myself and others, that Canon would make a more versatile machine, although that's exactly what they did with the R5.

But Canon are well and truly on a roller at the moment, with at least 3 new models expected this year, and they're already grabbing a large section of the market with the R5, R6 and soon the R3. So, it's feasible that they could bring out a real killer machine, in the form of a super-versatile, dual-resolution hybrid gripped "R1" body, although it would may well be sold at Leica-like prices.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Where does Canon go with the R5II in two years or so? It seems like the resolutions are converging if this is 75mp and the R5II is...what...60mp?


Now THAT is a very interesting question, and one that I've been wondering about myself.

Sony of course has for many years been updating models and creating exactly the same problem for itself -even more so, considering that it retains older models in parallel with the new ones, so I'd expect Canon to adopt a similar approach with the RF cameras.

So what would I expect, or hope, to see in a R5Mkii?


Higher resolution blackout-free EVF with higher dynamic range and "natural" rendering.
Option for low, medium and fast fps with electronic shutter.
Exposure bracketing with electronic shutter.
Better energy management and possibly a new larger high performance battery.
Faster sensor readout and data transfer.
More intelligent subject recognition, dispensing with (or at least, reducing) the need for focus cases or manual subject selection.
The same 45MP sensor resolution as the R5, but possibly a new stacked BSI design.
Additional customisation options.
Use of AI technology to enable accurate registration of in-camera focus-stacking and HDR with RAW output file.
AF joystick redesigned.

If 6 or 7 out of the above 10 enhancements made it to the R5Mkii, I'd likely get one. I'd use it as my primary camera, and retain the R5 as a backup (or carry both in some situations, fitted with different lenses).

Few of these improvements would conflict with other models in the range, if they kept their own basic specification and added similar enhancements.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 22, 2022)

75 MP? Yes, but lenses will have to follow.
How many current lenses fully exploit the resolution of a 75 MP sensor? We could need more lenses like the 1,2/50 or 1,2/ 85...


----------



## kaihp (Feb 22, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I'd LOVE to see Canon dip their toe into digital MF....but not holding my breath on that one...


As I recall, the world-wide market for MF bodies are in the few thousands. 5-6K maybe.
@neuroanatomist will surely remember the number off the top of his head. 

I sincerely doubt that Canon has any interest in going into such a small market when they would have to make both bodies and lenses for an MF format. That is, unless they use an existing bayonet system. Which would seem very unlike Canon to be. 

With all these "this ain't Canon" statements, surely someone is going to point out that Canon did do something like XXX at some point in time


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Beware of the buffer. The R5 can barely handle 45 mp. Generally okay for birds in flight, but it becomes a real problem with any kind of sports shooting. Even the R3 can run into buffer problems at the highest frame rate. I've gone exclusively to CRaw to reduce buffer issues.
> 
> The buffer is another reason this will not be an R1. Just too much data to push through for sports shooters.


I'm trying to understand the buffer issue you have... The digital picture did some tests on the R5 and came up with the following. 
Are you using mechanical or electronic shutter? 
What number of shots would you be taking in your sports shooting and over how much time? 12fps raw + raw on 512GB cards would only get you ~60 bursts of 15 seconds

cRaw would certainly improve on these figures further but it hard to see how the buffer is a major issue even with full size raw files.


TestImage CountSeconds12 fps RAW > CFexpress40533.812 fps RAW > SD18215.012 fps RAW + RAW17514.620 fps RAW > CFexpress1467.320 fps RAW > SD1105.520 fps RAW + RAW1045.2


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm trying to understand the buffer issue you have... The digital picture did some tests on the R5 and came up with the following.
> Are you using mechanical or electronic shutter?
> What number of shots would you be taking in your sports shooting and over how much time? 12fps raw + raw on 512GB cards would only get you ~60 bursts of 15 seconds
> 
> ...


I can only speak to my personal experience. R5 with Raw in slot 1 and jpg in slot 2 as backup. If I'm shooting a basketball player running down the court and doing a layup, the R5 buffer will often fill before he or she reaches the basket (shooting mechanical shutter on the R5 High Speed +). Then, the camera is frozen while waiting for the buffer to clear (you can shoot once the buffer gets to a certain point, but it will immediately fill up again if it isn't completely cleared.

With the R3, you can usually complete the play before the buffer fills, but I've still had the occasional problem where it doesn't clear in time for the next play. Using the electronic shutter High Speed +.

I don't know how Brian conducted his tests, so I can't speak to them. I suppose it isn't the size of the buffer, but the speed at which it clears that is the problem.

As I've said many times before, it's never been a problem with birds in flight, but in sports, where one play can quickly follow another, it can present a challenge to capture that second play.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 22, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im likely a minority but as with the 5DS that I still have and use, a 75mp version of the R5 should be aimed at photographers and not worry about 8K. The videographers are well catered for with the R5 and the R5c so why do they need a third R5 series camera?


All mirrorless (and DSLR in live view) use video off the sensor. They are already processing video so the incremental cost is small for firmware to handle video output especially as Canon has already managed all the codecs in the R5/R5c. I would be surprised if Canon added oversampling from 75mp to 8k with significant thermal record times but using a ~1.3 crop from the sensor would be simple.



jeffa4444 said:


> The 5DS / 5DSr were favourites with landscape photographers and studio photographers and its the latter where Ive used the 5DS. This camera was better damped than the standard 5D MKIII and MKIV and had other improvements over the 5D MKIII it was based on all aimed at photographers.
> 
> Ive never shot a single clip of video on my Canon DSLRs or mirrorless cameras and Im sure Im not alone. I do shoot video but much prefer dedicated video cameras than compromises to be able to do both.
> So based on the 5DS experience, mirrorless experience with the EOS R and R6 heres what I would like to see.
> ...


I am not suggesting that the R5 has sufficient mp for you only to put it in context as the 5Ds/r has roughly the same resolution as the R5 and basically replaced it as the high resolution Canon body.
The current R5 has better ISO, a faster flash sync (1/250 vs 1/200) and way faster fps. If a R5s has the same specs then it would meet your wish list.

The R5/R5 don't have the same fps in mechanical and electronic shutter. Are you suggesting that the R5s should have 12fps mechanical/20fps electronic? What would be your use case for these speeds (+60% data throughput than R5)? Canon has previously limited their action bodies to smaller sensor mp.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I can only speak to my personal experience. R5 with Raw in slot 1 and jpg in slot 2 as backup. If I'm shooting a basketball player running down the court and doing a layup, the R5 buffer will often fill before he or she reaches the basket (shooting mechanical shutter on the R5 High Speed +). Then, the camera is frozen while waiting for the buffer to clear (you can shoot once the buffer gets to a certain point, but it will immediately fill up again if it isn't completely cleared.
> 
> With the R3, you can usually complete the play before the buffer fills, but I've still had the occasional problem where it doesn't clear in time for the next play. Using the electronic shutter High Speed +.
> 
> I don't know how Brian conducted his tests, so I can't speak to them. I suppose it isn't the size of the buffer, but the speed at which it clears that is the problem.


How many shots are you taking in a basketball game? 
It is great that Canon offers a cRaw option at full res with very little shadow loss (as far as I can see in the raw files and read online tests). 
I never understood the calls for small/medium/large raw option from the current 5Ds/r users vs cRaw


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 23, 2022)

Fischer said:


> If you compare _*the same image *_taken from a 1 - 20 -50 - 5000 MPIX picture there will be zero (0.0) more shake, zero (0.0) more subject movement and zero (0.0) more focus miss between them.


This isn't entirely true. A higher MP camera can pick up motion blur that a lower MP camera does not. It may be an optical phenomenon, but the motion is across a pixel grid. It is possible for a finer grid to detect a moving line across two pixels where on a coarser grid the moving line never leaves the bounds of one.

And if the higher MP sensor does pickup motion blur, you can see it at the same view size just like you can see increased sharpness and fine detail in a non-blurred shot. This depends of course on the view size and how well the medium preserves the full resolution. It's a narrow window between both cameras showing blur and only one showing blur. Or perhaps neither showing it at the intended view size. But that window does exist. I can't reliably hand hold a 5Ds to the same shutter speeds as a 5D mark III.

That said, people make way too much of this. I shoot my 5Ds at the same shutter speeds I used to shoot my 7D at. So the higher resolution costs me...a half stop? Maybe a 75mp camera would cost a full stop to be on the safe side? How much do we gain from IBIS? From improved OIS in lenses? When the 5Ds and 5DsR came out there were people who acted like they had to be tripod mounted at all times, which is complete nonsense even without IS lenses. A slight increase in the possibility of capturing some motion blur is no reason to avoid a higher MP body.

As to AF: Canon did take steps to improve accuracy on the 5Ds/5DsR. And it worked. But more to the point, this new body will use dual or quad pixel AF. Focusing will be at the sensor with millions of points analyzing the scene. I doubt AF accuracy will be an issue.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 23, 2022)

tapanit said:


> I don't see any limit to the desire of more pixels - as long as they actually provide more detail, there's obviously no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, for example.


We need a high MP FAQ at the head of every rumor about a high MP body 


Lenses/sensors do not "out resolve" each other. Improving either will improve the final result. There are of course diminishing returns. But as demonstrated by Bob Atkins in his 5Ds review, even the worst lens will produce a better result on a higher MP sensor.
High ISO noise performance is dominated by sensor size, not pixel size. A high MP RF body is very likely to have the same high ISO performance as the R5.
Pixel size has not been strongly correlated with base ISO DR for years. It's likely a high MP RF body will have at least as much DR as the R5.
There is a bit of truth to motion blur claims. A high MP sensor can sometimes pickup blur that a lower MP sensor does not. But we're talking about 0.5-1 stop faster shutter speeds to compensate. No, a high MP RF body will not be stuck on a tripod.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2022)

keithcooper said:


> Having had an H6d 100C here for a while with an HTS1.5 tilt/shift adapter, I'm rather liking working with 100MP images on occasions
> So, yes please - for my 5Ds replacement as well, since the H6D will be going back to Hasselblad at some point
> I sometimes stitch multiple 5Ds shots to get resolution - it would be nice to have more available in one shot (oh, and some new T/S lenses as well ;-) )
> 
> ...


Agree. Shot the S1R as a primary body for better part of a year a couple years back. The sensor shift stuff was fantastic in terms of how much I could get away with hand-held. 

And, by the way, Keith, very nice webinar earlier today on tilt/shift.


----------



## tron (Feb 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I can only speak to my personal experience. R5 with Raw in slot 1 and jpg in slot 2 as backup. If I'm shooting a basketball player running down the court and doing a layup, the R5 buffer will often fill before he or she reaches the basket (shooting mechanical shutter on the R5 High Speed +). Then, the camera is frozen while waiting for the buffer to clear (you can shoot once the buffer gets to a certain point, but it will immediately fill up again if it isn't completely cleared.
> 
> With the R3, you can usually complete the play before the buffer fills, but I've still had the occasional problem where it doesn't clear in time for the next play. Using the electronic shutter High Speed +.
> 
> ...


hello, regarding R5 what CFExpress card are you using exactly? I ask because for some brands the lower capacity CFExrpress cards are slower (for example 64,128,256 vs 512gb Sandisk). Of course camera's controller must be equally fast (I remember how slow 5DMk3 SD controller was!)

The compressed raw selection is a nice trick. I remembered I had set it so in my 90D where I had similar issues (and a UHS-II does not offer a big advantage). I had set it but it was set it and forget it ... literally and I remembered it thanks to your reference. Also it is not being used that much these days.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> How many shots are you taking in a basketball game?
> It is great that Canon offers a cRaw option at full res with very little shadow loss (as far as I can see in the raw files and read online tests).
> I never understood the calls for small/medium/large raw option from the current 5Ds/r users vs cRaw


Too many.

Of course it is easy to get hooked on the high frame rate and I probably should shoot at a lower frame rate, but it's hard to do that when you know you might be missing a shot. (Volleyballs, Soccer Balls, Basketballs, Baseballs, Golf Balls all go really fast and if the ball isn't in the frame, you got nothing most times)

Honestly, I cannot see any difference between CRaw and Full Raw.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2022)

tron said:


> hello, regarding R5 what CFExpress card are you using exactly? I ask because for some brands the lower capacity CFExrpress cards are slower (for example 64,128,256 vs 512gb Sandisk). Of course camera's controller must be equally fast (I remember how slow 5DMk3 SD controller was!)
> 
> The compressed raw selection is a nice trick. I remembered I had set it so in my 90D where I had similar issues (and a UHS-II does not offer a big advantage). I had set it but it was set it and forget it ... literally and I remembered it thanks to your reference. Also it is not being used that much these days.


That's interesting. I never noticed that. Mostly I am using 256gb Sandisk, with some 128 Sandisk and ProGrade Gold thrown in. 

I have one 512gb card, but I don't really like to use it because a weird thing happens -- with CRaw the number of files that the card can hold from the R3 exceeds the R3 default file numbering and Canon does a weird thing, where when it starts over and adds a "-1" to the file name. The result is that when you download the files, they are no longer in the shot order and even more frustrating, they alternate from one to another so that you might have 1,000 files where, say, a sequence has a single men's basketball game shot, then a single women's basketball game shot, then a men's, then a woman's. Royal pain in the butt to get them back into the proper order.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Feb 23, 2022)

I'd love to see them take the pixel density of the 90D and go full frame with it with stacked BSI tech. That'd net ~11124x7416 px, or ~82.5 MP. Of course, just for video scaling ease and heat management, they likely go something more like 10560x7040 (~75MP) with a very slight crop down to 9600x5400 for UHD video and scale that down to either 8K or 4K/2K, which would literally be a straight 5x reduction for 1080p video. And for super 35 sized crop would give a solid 4K readout at 1:1. For DCI, they could either crop just a little more for native 1:1 pixel read out for DCI 8K, or have almost no crop at 10240x5760 and scale that down to the smaller DCI standards.

I know, wishful thinking on my part, but still... now that it seems Canon has woken up to designing their sensors to make it easier to do oversampled and scaled down video, it'd behoove them to set the native pixel dimensions to even multiples of video resolutions just so scaling or binning is easier and less computationally expensive. Part of heat management is not having to burn CPU cycles doing unnecessary math.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Sony will probably leap- Frog Canon with their 100 megapixel sensor that has Already been developed in 2019
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unlike Canon, Sony does not only make sensors for themselves.
Binning 100 MP down to 6K would be like the a1 binning 50 MP down to 6K for oversampled 4K.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> We need a high MP FAQ at the head of every rumor about a high MP body
> 
> 
> Lenses/sensors do not "out resolve" each other. Improving either will improve the final result. There are of course diminishing returns. But as demonstrated by Bob Atkins in his 5Ds review, even the worst lens will produce a better result on a higher MP sensor.
> ...


There is more too it than just megapixels but modern sensors can pick up aberrations in lenses that older sensors were not able to.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> That's interesting. I never noticed that. Mostly I am using 256gb Sandisk, with some 128 Sandisk and ProGrade Gold thrown in.
> 
> I have one 512gb card, but I don't really like to use it because a weird thing happens -- with CRaw the number of files that the card can hold from the R3 exceeds the R3 default file numbering and Canon does a weird thing, where when it starts over and adds a "-1" to the file name. The result is that when you download the files, they are no longer in the shot order and even more frustrating, they alternate from one to another so that you might have 1,000 files where, say, a sequence has a single men's basketball game shot, then a single women's basketball game shot, then a men's, then a woman's. Royal pain in the butt to get them back into the proper order.


After having 2 cameras that hit the same numbers at the same time, I have exiftool rename files on import to date-camera-lens-originalname. And in the viewer I sort them based on capture date, DPP4 is really bad at it, LR and DXO pretty good.

Depending on how you download the files, the filesystem can keep the modification date when copying. That only works if you’re using a card reader, though.


----------



## NKD (Feb 23, 2022)

Sure a few have allready posted.
My wishlist hahahaa
- R3 body
- What ever dynamic range - id probably be happy with same as R5 15stops (coming form 5dsR)
- Cancel AA filter for extreme sharpening in post!
- Flawless firmware on release
- Good battery life (LPN6's dual even better!)
- Illuminated rear buttons
- Good spot for pyical tether cord for vertical and horiz mounting via arca swiss (RRS plates)
- Wireless tether
- GPS
- Hybrid EVF ith electronic overlay
- 3fps is fine - Although 10 would be nice (even with crop)
- 4k 60fps or 8k 30fps

Wishfull thinking.
- God knows even a new filtype? CR4...The sensor can just capture light and in editing not overepose 
- Dont release another susseor for another 8 years - This gunna be a huge investment with new RF glass


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 23, 2022)

keithcooper said:


> I appreciate it's not something many want, but I've never stepped up in resolution with a new camera and thought 'that's too much'


Exactly. People say they don't need it but I'd bet those same people would not be willing to go down in resolution from what they currently use.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Feb 23, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> GENERATING 1/4 the pixels by averaging four neighboring pixels might be hard, though, I don't know.


Don't average them, just lower the ADC bit depth and sum them. Doing 12 bit ADC and summing the two green channels (RGGB to RGB) would net 12 bit red and blue and 13 bit green. Taking a 2x2 RGB and halving it again (for quarter resolution) would net 14 bits red and blue, and 15 bits green. 12 bit ADC gives faster readout too. Half size would give slightly smaller files, but quarter size would give much smaller files, though either would no longer be bayer CFA but rather just full raw RGB.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

NKD said:


> - Flawless firmware on release


This is the least likely part of your list


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

ColinJR said:


> Exactly. People say they don't need it but I'd bet those same people would not be willing to go down in resolution from what they currently use.


Plenty of people went from the EOS R to the R6


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Plenty of people went for the EOS R to the R6


I wonder what the stat is on that. As much of a "beta" camera the R is compared to the R6, I went for the R5 (from the R) because I didn't want to take a resolution hit... I find too much value in cropping and enjoy the look of the higher res sensor.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Feb 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Plenty of people went for the EOS R to the R6


I actually went even more drastic. I went from an R5 and R6 (primary and backup) to two R6s about 3-4 months ago. I still have the R5, but it's used in a dedicated copy stand setup for something else and not for general purpose shooting like my two R6s. I know a lot of wedding/event photographers that went from 5DM4 or the original R to the R6. Do I wish the R6 had more resolution? Heck yeah, but at the same time, I primarily shoot portraits and headshots and weddings and events and most of my work is either printed at book size or used directly online as profile photos, and frankly, if your output is 240-300 pixels per inch on paper (or even smaller for screen), the R6 is more than enough resolution. I have grips on both my R6s and would love to do 2 R3s, but they're just too expensive, so two R6s is where it's at for me for at least the next couple of years. If I absolutely have to have the resolution, I can take the R5 off the copy stand and use it, but in all reality, the R6 is plenty of resolution for my type of work, and for stills photography is basically a mirrorless 1DXMIII with two fast SD cards. I used to have an original R (before the R5) and still use an RP for my personal camera and in all honesty, from a resolution standpoint, I'm pretty hard pressed to see sharpness differences between them without looking at the metadata to see which is which. I'm sure if I take exactly the same shot with the same lens but different body and compare them I'd see the differences, if I pixel peeked, but outside of that. Nope. They all look sharp and I'm rarely cropping in so far that my final output isn't still scaled down.


----------



## David_D (Feb 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are using the same focal length lens and viewing at the same metric size, then: minor focus errors; subject movement; camera-shake; high ISO noise; and diffraction-related softness should all be near enough identical. Fine detail should be better for the high resolution sensor, but perceived edge detail may artefactually look lower because smooth transitions may lose their texture and look sharper on the lower Mpx sensor. If there are lens aberrations, high noise, excessive diffraction, movement, bad focus etc the difference in fine detail will decrease, but the high resolution sensor will never give poorer images than the lower.


I completely agree, if looking at the RAW files, but given there is 4 times the information (although potentially a little noisier) that will give the image processing algorithms more to work with, so that the end result should appear much better with the higher Mpx sensor?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 23, 2022)

David_D said:


> I completely agree, if looking at the RAW files, but given there is 4 times the information (although potentially a little noisier) that will give the image processing algorithms more to work with, so that the end result should appear much better with the higher Mpx sensor?


It depends on the size you are using to view it. On an 8x10 print at arms length you would see less difference, if any, compared to viewing it full screen on a 27" monitor.

Generally more resolution means better results, which might not show up in the end product. People here like to use the 800x800px Instagram post as an example for that


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 23, 2022)

Interesting rumor. 
77mp sounds like a good compromise between high pixel, noise handling etc. and a great resolution. It seems like Canon once again chose to produce files which can be handled with ease (like 24MP for R3) rather than follow the call for extreme pixel peeping. 

On the other hand, I guess they'll lose the "high-mega pixel" to Sony shortly after the release of the high MP R5s (or similiar) because Sony will easily manage to install an 80+ MP sensor in the 7RV.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 23, 2022)

Genuine question:
Would a 77MP be a good astro camera or not? I imagine there'll be a ton of crazy detail on a tracked Milky Way shot. But I fear micro shocks would easily make the image loose sharpness. And what about low-light capabilities? Would they be much worse than R6 level specs?


----------



## cayenne (Feb 23, 2022)

kaihp said:


> As I recall, the world-wide market for MF bodies are in the few thousands. 5-6K maybe.
> @neuroanatomist will surely remember the number off the top of his head.
> 
> I sincerely doubt that Canon has any interest in going into such a small market when they would have to make both bodies and lenses for an MF format. That is, unless they use an existing bayonet system. Which would seem very unlike Canon to be.
> ...


Like I said, I'm not holding my breath for Canon to do it.

However, with the popularity of the Fuji GFX system, especially with the release of the 100MP GFX100S, at the fairly low price of $6K, I would have to imagine that the uptake is well north of 5000-6000 units sold.

I believe they are also revamping the 50MP digital MF GFX cameras, which will be even lower in price.

No, they aren't high FPS shooters, but that's not expected from medium format....you do gain in other areas significantly.

But again, I was just kinda wish-listing for Canon to look into digital MF.

I'm just wondering if they won't soon hit the limit of trying to squeeze more MP into a FF sensor....at some point, you run into problems with pixel density, size of pixels, etc.

At some point, you would gain more by going with a larger sensor size.

Hell, while I'm wishing, I wish someone would come with a true panoramic sensor....something you could take native XPan type images with.
I'd be all over that in digital, or even if someone put out a fully mechanical new 35mm film camera version of it.

I'd hock a kidney or two for that.

I guess I might as well throw in a wish for a pony too.


C


----------



## Fischer (Feb 23, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> This isn't entirely true. A higher MP camera can pick up motion blur that a lower MP camera does not. It may be an optical phenomenon, but the motion is across a pixel grid. It is possible for a finer grid to detect a moving line across two pixels where on a coarser grid the moving line never leaves the bounds of one.
> 
> And if the higher MP sensor does pickup motion blur, you can see it at the same view size just like you can see increased sharpness and fine detail in a non-blurred shot. This depends of course on the view size and how well the medium preserves the full resolution. It's a narrow window between both cameras showing blur and only one showing blur. Or perhaps neither showing it at the intended view size. But that window does exist. I can't reliably hand hold a 5Ds to the same shutter speeds as a 5D mark III.
> 
> ...


Oh please... I am not continuing this.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 23, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Genuine question:
> Would a 77MP be a good astro camera or not? I imagine there'll be a ton of crazy detail on a tracked Milky Way shot. But I fear micro shocks would easily make the image loose sharpness. And what about low-light capabilities? Would they be much worse than R6 level specs?


The sensor is all-important for Astro results. Only looking at MPIX it will be an advantage to have more. But its much more about the sensor, so only tests will tell us.


----------



## entoman (Feb 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I have one 512gb card, but I don't really like to use it because a weird thing happens -- with CRaw the number of files that the card can hold from the R3 exceeds the R3 default file numbering and Canon does a weird thing, where when it starts over and adds a "-1" to the file name. The result is that when you download the files, they are no longer in the shot order and even more frustrating, they alternate from one to another so that you might have 1,000 files where, say, a sequence has a single men's basketball game shot, then a single women's basketball game shot, then a men's, then a woman's. Royal pain in the butt to get them back into the proper order.


Silly question perhaps, but if you're using Lightroom, why don't you simply sort the images by chronological order?

Once sorted, if you wish, you can them auto-rename them with progressive file numbers and prefixes/suffixes of your own choice..


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I guess I'm a putz if I'm happy with my 20 on the R6?
> 
> I'm ok with that.


Not everybody has to buy or require high resolution / high pixel density sensors for them to have a place in the Canon lineup.

Just as hopefully no reasonable user of a high pixel density body demands that lower resolutions be eliminated, no user that is fine with lower resolutions should insist that Canon offers only such resolutions.

A major strength of Canon's lineup has historically been their ability to recognize distinct segments in the market and offer solutions tbat fits their respective need and budget well.

In other words, one group of people getting what they want from Canon should not affect any aspect of the other groups they serve.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Silly question perhaps, but if you're using Lightroom, why don't you simply sort the images by chronological order?
> 
> Once sorted, if you wish, you can them auto-rename them with progressive file numbers and prefixes/suffixes of your own choice..


Good suggestion. I use Bridge, but I can do the same in that. I will do that next time I run into the problem.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 23, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Like I said, I'm not holding my breath for Canon to do it.
> 
> However, with the popularity of the Fuji GFX system, especially with the release of the 100MP GFX100S, at the fairly low price of $6K, I would have to imagine that the uptake is well north of 5000-6000 units sold.


I think you missed the point: the total available world-wide market, including all manufacturers, for MF bodies is 5-6000 units/year. 

Canon isn't going to capture 100% of that market, so even if they were really successful, they'd sell maybe 1500 units (25% market share). Even with a price of $6K, that is $9M at the retailer. Retailers need their share, manufacturing takes its bite, and you aren't left with a lot of money for R&D and bottom line.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Silly question perhaps, but if you're using Lightroom, why don't you simply sort the images by chronological order?
> 
> Once sorted, if you wish, you can them auto-rename them with progressive file numbers and prefixes/suffixes of your own choice..


When I used to use Lightroom, I used to do the rename and renumber on import....

Does that not still work with the new *rented* versions of LR?


----------



## cayenne (Feb 23, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I think you missed the point: the total available world-wide market, including all manufacturers, for MF bodies is 5-6000 units/year.
> 
> Canon isn't going to capture 100% of that market, so even if they were really successful, they'd sell maybe 1500 units (25% market share). Even with a price of $6K, that is $9M at the retailer. Retailers need their share, manufacturing takes its bite, and you aren't left with a lot of money for R&D and bottom line.


Well, part of my post was that I would be surprised that the digital MF market annually was only 506K units a year....
With the lowered cost of the GFX100S and the new GFX50 variants, I would guess the market annually was a bit more than 5-6K.

C


----------



## entoman (Feb 23, 2022)

cayenne said:


> When I used to use Lightroom, I used to do the rename and renumber on import....
> 
> Does that not still work with the new *rented* versions of LR?


AFAIK it works with all versions of LR, and with Bridge. Probably also with PhotoMechanic.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> There is a precedent - the Leica M11
> 
> "_At the heart of the new Leica M11 is a full-frame BSI CMOS sensor with Triple Resolution Technology. Raw image files in DNG format and JPEGs can be recorded at 60, 36 or 18 megapixels, always using the full sensor area. The 60-megapixel option delivers unprecedented image quality and detail resolution, exploiting the full optical potential of Leica’s latest APO Lenses for the M-System – whereas the lower resolutions enable faster camera performance, extended burst lengths, and smaller files_." - Photography Blog
> 
> So it's absolutely possible that this could be a feature of a forthcoming Canon RF camera.


Depends on how gullible you are to marketing bullish!t, the Leica M11 is a 60mp sensor, anything smaller is simply recalculated downsizing. 

If you are happy to buy a 60mp camera and work with 18mp RAW files you'd be equally happy processing c-RAW files which give you around 50% file size saving.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 23, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I think you missed the point: the total available world-wide market, including all manufacturers, for MF bodies is 5-6000 units/year.
> 
> Canon isn't going to capture 100% of that market, so even if they were really successful, they'd sell maybe 1500 units (25% market share). Even with a price of $6K, that is $9M at the retailer. Retailers need their share, manufacturing takes its bite, and you aren't left with a lot of money for R&D and bottom line.


That's true today and I'm sure the mirrorless full frame camera market was 5-6000 units/year in its early days.
I think Canon would expand a Medium Formatt market if they entered it. 
I've no idea if an RF lens could fit a medium format sensor or whether a teleconverter adapter would be required. (Maybe they could do a RF-H Crop Medium Format). 
Camera's users can be very demanding. Full frame at some point will hit a limit like APS-C and micro 4/3. 
Maybe medium formatt is the next step. They can be quite compact.
There is quite a market for the best.
This high MP camera will be interesting. I have a 5DSR. Originally I didn't like it. It's slow, poor buffer, not great at high ISO.
Overtime I've used it for what's its good for (studio, on a tripod landscapes). 
I wonder will this high MP camera come with equivalent limitations. I hope if functions quicker than a 5DSR. Nothing worse that waiting for a buffer to clear.


----------



## MrToes (Feb 24, 2022)

A hi Res Cannon, would be much appreciated


----------



## adrian_bacon (Feb 24, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Of COURSE averaging four integers in hardware is done with summing and bit-shifting. I doubt it's been done any other way in the history of mankind. Why do you harp on the freaking obvious like this?



Perhaps you're misreading what I said. I never said sum and bit shift. I said sample at 12 bits instead of 14 and just sum them. It's faster than sampling at 14 bits and averaging them and will net basically the same thing. I'm not sure where you're getting bit shifting from.

Also, you must be confusing me with somebody else, because I rarely post anything here, so how exactly am I harping on anything?


----------



## MrToes (Feb 24, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> Day one purchase for me.


One for me also!


----------



## Fischer (Feb 24, 2022)

Joules said:


> Not everybody has to buy or require high resolution / high pixel density sensors for them to have a place in the Canon lineup.
> 
> Just as hopefully no reasonable user of a high pixel density body demands that lower resolutions be eliminated, no user that is fine with lower resolutions should insist that Canon offers only such resolutions.


Correct, but I do not see that happening.

There are thousands of posts around claiming "no one" needs a camera with "that many" pixels and - to my knowledge - none saying that X camera should not have been made, because "no one" can work with so few pixels. Still, many of the same people behind "too many pixels" posts have have themselves since upgraded to 2x, 3x, 4x and even more pixels. Go figure.

More pixels is also more future proof. I sometimes suggest doubters to go to an older photo site such as pBase and have a look at how impossibly small lots of the older pictures are when viewing them on a modern screen. 8K screens are coming one day in the future. And I am happy that the pictures I took 10 years ago still will look great on those screens. I'm however not sure those I took 20 years ago will.

People should get the camera they want and take the pictures they like.


----------



## MrToes (Feb 24, 2022)

I'm really looking forward to this rumor truly turning into fruit this time


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Correct, but I do not see that happening.
> 
> There are thousands of posts around claiming "no one" needs a camera with "that many" pixels and - to my knowledge - none saying that X camera should not have been made, because "no one" can work with so few pixels. Still, many of the same people behind "too many pixels" posts have have themselves since upgraded to 2x, 3x, 4x and even more pixels. Go figure.
> 
> ...


People need (or want) what they need (or want). Canon will make cameras they believe people will buy, and history has shown they're very good at determining cameras people will purchase. I suspect Canon will continue to offer bodies across a range of MP counts. 

Personally, I started with a 15 MP APS-C, then an 18 MP APS-C, then a 21 MP FF, then an 18 MP FF, then a 30 MP FF, and my main camera is now a 24 MP FF. 

I think 'future proofing' is overrated. Content is king. My first child's birth was recorded on SD video, and her early years were captured with a 4 MP camera. If capturing future proof images is your main concern, you need to be shooting with the Hasselblad H6D-400C Multi-Shot that can produce composited images at 400 MP. Don’t settle for less, anything else is a compromise.

As for 8K displays, I'm sure they are coming. For a desktop monitor, increasing beyond a certain point is empty resolution. If your eyes cannot resolve the difference, it doesn't matter. In fact, it can be counterproductive – for example, MacOS doesn't have UI scaling, so with my 34" 5K:2K display at native resolution, the menus are _small_. On an 8K display, they'd be unusable.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for 8K displays, I'm sure they are coming. For a desktop monitor, increasing beyond a certain point is empty resolution. If your eyes cannot resolve the difference, it doesn't matter. In fact, it can be counterproductive – for example, MacOS doesn't have UI scaling, so with my 34" 5K:2K display at native resolution, the menus are _small_. On an 8K display, they'd be unusable.


+1 on this. To my middle-aging eyes running the "100%" scaling on the 14" laptop screen with 2560x1440 resolution is just too small. Same with 4K on the 32" monitor. In both cases 120% seems much better for me.

My laptop is coming up to it's 3 years mark, and I am considered to replace it later this year. Originally I was looking to find a model with a 4K screen (X1 Carbon Gen 10 or T14), but the fact that a 2560 resolution is just too fine has made me stop and wonder if it makes any sense to go for 4K. I've always said that "you can't have too much screen real-estate" (which is extra true with Windows 10's* brain-damage regarding the GUI design), but going for 4K might just not be worth-while.

*) I tried Windows 11 for a few days and it didn't seem to make steps forward, but only backwards, so I restored Win10.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 24, 2022)

kaihp said:


> My laptop is coming up to it's 3 years mark, and I am considered to replace it later this year. Originally I was looking to find a model with a 4K screen (X1 Carbon Gen 10 or T14), but the fact that a 2560 resolution is just too fine has made me stop and wonder if it makes any sense to go for 4K. I've always said that "you can't have too much screen real-estate" (which is extra true with Windows 10's* brain-damage regarding the GUI design), but going for 4K might just not be worth-while.


In general, I think you're right - but I have to say my 27" 5K iMac is far and away the best monitor I've ever used. Genuinely a joy to use with (eg) PS and LR.


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for 8K displays, I'm sure they are coming. For a desktop monitor, increasing beyond a certain point is empty resolution. If your eyes cannot resolve the difference, it doesn't matter. In fact, it can be counterproductive – for example, MacOS doesn't have UI scaling, so with my 34" 5K:2K display at native resolution, the menus are _small_. On an 8K display, they'd be unusable.


I think it is important to future proof (within reason) and it wouldn't surprise me, if in 5 years time, 8K was available widely enough and affordably enough to oust 4K as the most popular monitor resolution. An image that at 100% fully occupies a 4K monitor now, will only occupy 50% of the area on an 8K screen. So IMO it's wise to go for high-res cameras now. Beyond 5 years it's fairly irrelevant to me, but it is relevant for younger photographers who'll want even more future-proofing.

As a Mac user I agree about the UI scaling problem. I use a 5K 27" monitor at the moment, and the text in the drop-downs is perfectly readable at normal viewing distances, but yes it will become more of a struggle at higher resolutions. However, I'd expect Apple to move to a new generation of OS that incorporates UI scaling, in due course.


----------



## tron (Feb 24, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think it is important to future proof (within reason) and it wouldn't surprise me, if in 5 years time, 8K was available widely enough and affordably enough to oust 4K as the most popular monitor resolution. *An image that at 100% fully occupies a 4K monitor now, will only occupy 50% of the area on an 8K screen. *So IMO it's wise to go for high-res cameras now. Beyond 5 years it's fairly irrelevant to me, but it is relevant for younger photographers who'll want even more future-proofing.
> 
> As a Mac user I agree about the UI scaling problem. I use a 5K 27" monitor at the moment, and the text in the drop-downs is perfectly readable at normal viewing distances, but yes it will become more of a struggle at higher resolutions. However, I'd expect Apple to move to a new generation of OS that incorporates UI scaling, in due course.


Unfortunately even worse: An image that occupies 100% fully a 4K monitor it will occupy 25% of a 8K pixelwise:

4K monitors: 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 8.3 Mpixel)
8K monitors: 7680 x 4320 pixels = 2x 3840 x 2x 2160 = 4 x 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 33 Mpixel) So a 8K monitor has 4 times the megapixels of a 4K monitor.

I really hope we will not use 8K monitors soon since only an image from a high megapixel camera will cover a 8K monitor. And if we want to show a bird which will occupy a small part of the photo then we will have to stand close to the monitor  or get even bigger lenses


----------



## sanj (Feb 25, 2022)

ColinJR said:


> Exactly. People say they don't need it but I'd bet those same people would not be willing to go down in resolution from what they currently use.


Many people got R3 while they had R5. Many!


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 25, 2022)

If this rumor is to come to fruition (and a rating of CR2 indicates it has a strong likelihood) then I hope that like the R5c announcement along with lots of other video focused announcements this will be an ecosystem upgrade announcement. 

Along with an R5s (or pick your name) I would love to see the R system replace many of the pieces of the EF system that high MP users leverage. This would include in my mind TS lenses (at least a couple to address architecture community), The rumored 10-24 RF lens (instant buy for many landscape photographers), and some wide and/or wide fast primes. Also, I would hope for camera features that appeal to the current 5DSR users like faster sync speeds for studio work, higher DR for landscape work, etc. 

As a business, Canon would be looking to address segments in wholistic ways. The bodies are just a path to upgrade a whole series of lenses, flashes and other accessories. A $4900 body purchase adds on warranty sale, adapters for many, lenses for many more (I would easily spend another $5-8K on additional RF lenses), flashes,etc. I wouldn’t expect to see a high MP announcement without a lot of supporting elements in the user ecosystem. I think this would go hand in hand. 

The same philosophy would apply to an R7 announcement (200-500 f4 lens, the new big whites, etc.), a consumer oriented entrant (rebel R, RP replacement, with lots of less Expensive lenses) and ultimately the R1. Not sure what the wow ecosystem elements will be with the R1 but I am sure there will be a few. 

Just my thoughts into the rumor grist mill.


----------



## spider-mario (Feb 25, 2022)

Finn said:


> I hope its a highly tuned 75MP sensor with 16-bit readout and a tilt screen instead of a flip out. That would be an excellent FF landscape camera for Canon. Don't compromise image quality for fast shutter or FPS.
> 
> I would rather see something that competes against Fuji MF.


What would you want 16-bit readout for with a 75MP camera? Even at a base ISO saturation capacity of, say, 3000 e⁻/μm² (high end of R3, R5, R6), so ~35k e⁻/pixel, you would need a base ISO read noise of less than 2e⁻ rms to make more than 14 bits worthwhile. I really doubt that it is going to be the case.

(Speaking for myself, I would prefer that they stick to a fully-articulated screen.)



AlanF said:


> You will need wide glass to make the most of 75 Mpx, like the RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. The diffraction limited aperture will be f/5.5 compared with f/7.1 of the R5. If I got one, I would for my bird photography pair it with an RF 500/4 if they could make it light enough. I previously noticed in practice that the 90D with its sensor equivalent to 82 Mpx FF and DLA of f/5.2 showed an f/4 400mm pulling ahead of a f/5.6 400mm relative to even the 5DSR.
> If they removed the AA-filter, which becomes less important as Mpx increase, then that by itself would make an increase in resolution.


It becomes less (but still) important but also less of a hindrance. I would rather they kept it. https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optical-low-pass-filters-and-high-resolution-cameras/


----------



## entoman (Feb 25, 2022)

tron said:


> Unfortunately even worse: An image that occupies 100% fully a 4K monitor it will occupy 25% of a 8K pixelwise:
> 
> 4K monitors: 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 8.3 Mpixel)
> 8K monitors: 7680 x 4320 pixels = 2x 3840 x 2x 2160 = 4 x 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 33 Mpixel) So a 8K monitor has 4 times the megapixels of a 4K monitor.
> ...


I stand corrected!


----------



## entoman (Feb 25, 2022)

sanj said:


> Many people got R3 while they had R5. Many!


FWIW, I had the 50MP 5DS but I found the slow burst speeds and mediocre AF held me back, so I bought the 30MP 5DMkiv, and that became my primary camera. But boy, did I miss those extra pixels!

Fortunately, now I've got the best of all worlds with the R5 - high resolution, more DR, faster fps and infinitely better subject tracking.

20MP is plenty for some subjects, but I find 45MP is about right for my style of working - enough to allow a lot of cropping when needed, but not so much that it slows down processing or fps.


----------



## sanj (Feb 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> FWIW, I had the 50MP 5DS but I found the slow burst speeds and mediocre AF held me back, so I bought the 30MP 5DMkiv, and that became my primary camera. But boy, did I miss those extra pixels!
> 
> Fortunately, now I've got the best of all worlds with the R5 - high resolution, more DR, faster fps and infinitely better subject tracking.
> 
> 20MP is plenty for some subjects, but I find 45MP is about right for my style of working - enough to allow a lot of cropping when needed, but not so much that it slows down processing or fps.


R5 is my favourite camera in current Canon offerings.


----------



## entoman (Feb 26, 2022)

sanj said:


> R5 is my favourite camera in current Canon offerings.


Same here. I don't like gripped cameras and the R5 has enough MP, DR and fps for me.

I need to replace my 5DMkiv though and switch to having a mirrorless backup body.

I'm hesitant to get a second R5 though, in case something even better is announced later this year, or early next year.


----------



## raspbotics (Feb 26, 2022)

R5 is my favourite camera as well. 45MP is enough and dual pixel autofocus is perfect, when I am filming alone an imagefilm for clients. It would be great having 240fps and variable ND filters at a model in the future.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 26, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> If this rumor is to come to fruition (and a rating of CR2 indicates it has a strong likelihood) then I hope that like the R5c announcement along with lots of other video focused announcements this will be an ecosystem upgrade announcement.
> 
> Along with an R5s (or pick your name) I would love to see the R system replace many of the pieces of the EF system that high MP users leverage. This would include in my mind TS lenses (at least a couple to address architecture community), The rumored 10-24 RF lens (instant buy for many landscape photographers), and some wide and/or wide fast primes. Also, I would hope for camera features that appeal to the current 5DSR users like faster sync speeds for studio work, higher DR for landscape work, etc.
> 
> ...


Historically the camera release cycle and lens release cycle have not matched up.
Expensive lenses were released with RP and cheap lenses were released with the R3.
If I had to make sense of it then I would say that Canon always wants us to know that they are going after both markets.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 26, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Oh please... I am not continuing this.


Then don't reply  

As for the "oh please"...it's directly observable. I used to repeat the claim that higher MP sensors do not suffer any more from motion blur than lower MP sensors. But I noticed I needed/was using higher shutter speeds on average with my own 5Ds, and then explicitly put it to the test. Observation trumps and modifies theory. It is true that the difference is minor because, again, the window where one will pick it up but not the other is minor. It's not something to be concerned with when considering a high MP camera, just something to be aware of.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 26, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Then don't reply
> 
> As for the "oh please"...it's directly observable. I used to repeat the claim that higher MP sensors do not suffer any more from motion blur than lower MP sensors. But I noticed I needed/was using higher shutter speeds on average with my own 5Ds, and then explicitly put it to the test. Observation trumps and modifies theory. It is true that the difference is minor because, again, the window where one will pick it up but not the other is minor. It's not something to be concerned with when considering a high MP camera, just something to be aware of.


At the risk of incurring the wrath and ridicule of the equivalence zealots I’d say that over the five years of being a 5DS user I too have noticed some empirical evidence to suggest that these cameras, under certain circumstances, suffer from a little more motion blur, even after downsampling, than I would have expected previous to 50mp. My experience has been more with shooting motion rather than camera shake.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 26, 2022)

Can’t wait to see what comes of this.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> At the risk of incurring the wrath and ridicule of the equivalence zealots I’d say that over the five years of being a 5DS user I too have noticed some empirical evidence to suggest that these cameras, under certain circumstances, suffer from a little more motion blur, even after downsampling, than I would have expected previous to 50mp. My experience has been more with shooting motion rather than camera shake.


You might want to consider the second point of this paragraph, which opticallimits.com trots out when they do MTF charts at 50 Mpx and 21 Mpx.
"Why are the MTFs sometimes "better" on 21 megapixels compared to 50 megapixels ? There are two reasons for this. Lateral CAs are lower in terms of pixel widths at 21mp simply because the pixel density is also lower. Extreme CAs that may exist at 50mp are therefore less affecting the measurements at 21mp. *Generally we are also using a certain degree of sharpening during the image conversion (just like in real life images) and because the 21mp results are "sharper" on pixel level they are relatively more receptive to (mild base-) sharpening*." https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3?start=1

The effects of sharpening also make sense in another way I have just thought of. If you use say USM and set to a 1 pixel radius, you are sharpening over a large distance with a low resolution sensor than a higher. Have you compared different sharpening settings in your comparisons? You also get artificial sharpening because of aliasing, and that's higher with larger pixels.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 27, 2022)

I understand what you're saying @AlanF, but it's only been a passing observation, more of technical interest that it exists rather than any practical issue, a little like the effect of 1/100 shutter speed on vibration, so it's not something I'd have tried to identify a way around. Actually I do very little sharpening on my images; I still use the traditional USM, and generally I'd be around the 80% of 0.3 px mark. For printing this would be greater depending upon the size of the print.

I guess if something slight is going on here we may hear something in the future now that cameras like the 50mp A1 are being used to capture action.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 28, 2022)

kaihp said:


> +1 on this. To my middle-aging eyes running the "100%" scaling on the 14" laptop screen with 2560x1440 resolution is just too small. Same with 4K on the 32" monitor. In both cases 120% seems much better for me.
> 
> My laptop is coming up to it's 3 years mark, and I am considered to replace it later this year. Originally I was looking to find a model with a 4K screen (X1 Carbon Gen 10 or T14), but the fact that a 2560 resolution is just too fine has made me stop and wonder if it makes any sense to go for 4K. I've always said that "you can't have too much screen real-estate" (which is extra true with Windows 10's* brain-damage regarding the GUI design), but going for 4K might just not be worth-while.
> 
> *) I tried Windows 11 for a few days and it didn't seem to make steps forward, but only backwards, so I restored Win10.


Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....

I came across this the other day:

Dell 49" Monitor

Any thoughts out there about this? I had been thinking maybe a 4K 32" monitor, but this would be nice getting as much space as possible in one monitor....this says QHD...is that 4K?

What high quality monitors would ya'll be looking at for 4K....?

cayenne


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2022)

keithcooper said:


> Because 'you' are not a big enough market... ;-)


That’s not true.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2022)

I’ve loved every minute with the 5DS in the environment I use it which is studio only. The camera is always set to 100iso, shutter speed 160 with the aperture and strobe output being the only variables. 
Can honestly say I’ve not experienced any motion blur (which is not surprising given the strobe speed). I only ever used lenses Canon recommended near the launch period and as a result I’ve been able to achieve high resolution shots. The camera is 60% hand held and 40% on a movable stand. If Canon do replace this camera it’s use for me will be identical.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 28, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....
> 
> I came across this the other day:
> 
> ...


That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.

With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity. 

My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....
> 
> I came across this the other day:
> 
> ...


QHD is 2560x1440, so well shy of 4K. The Dell you link is dual-QHD, so 5120x1440.

Personally, I use an LG 34” 5K:2K display at home. The ultrawide format (5120x2160, 21:9 aspect ratio) is like having a pair of monitors without the bezel in between, similar to the Dell. At work, I use a Samsung 34" WQHD curved display, same idea but lower resolution (WQHD is 3440x1440).

I prefer the LG display for the higher resolution and the flat style; I chose the Samsung displays for my company since I wanted everyone to have the same display (me included) and it was easier to justify spending $700 each than $1500 each when buying 10 of them with more to come.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> QHD is 2560x1440, so well shy of 4K. The Dell you link is dual-QHD, so 5120x1440.
> 
> Personally, I use an LG 34” 5K:2K display at home. The ultrawide format (5120x2160, 21:9 aspect ratio) is like having a pair of monitors without the bezel in between, similar to the Dell. At work, I use a Samsung 34" WQHD curved display, same idea but lower resolution (WQHD is 3440x1440).
> 
> I prefer the LG display for the higher resolution and the flat style; I chose the Samsung displays for my company since I wanted everyone to have the same display (me included) and it was easier to justify spending $700 each than $1500 each when buying 10 of them with more to come.


A very sensible choice.

I recently moved from a single 32" 4K display setup to a dual 32" 4K setup (essentially 7680 x 2160), as I found the single screen setup to be lacking when working with a lot of data or windows at the same time. 

However, the two 32" screens side-by-side is somewhat over-the-top as it's hard to utilize both screens fully. I'd say that I'd be able to roughly use 1 2/3 screen. 

But a "Full HD" is now officially relegated to "periscope" status (way too small viewing area) for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2022)

kaihp said:


> A very sensible choice.
> 
> I recently moved from a single 32" 4K display setup to a dual 32" 4K setup (essentially 7680 x 2160), as I found the single screen setup to be lacking when working with a lot of data or windows at the same time.
> 
> ...


Another consideration for me in getting 5K:2K over straight 5K or 4K was a lower top height. The double windows behind my home office desk look out to the forest behind my house – passerines, raptors, deer and foxes are common, along with an occasional coyote or fisher cat.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 1, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....
> 
> I came across this the other day:
> 
> ...


I used dual monitors for over 20 years. Then in 2014 I got my 27" iMac. It is 5K, so 4K on a 32" monitor doesn't sound so great.

I left the 23" monitor that I used with my Mac Pro beside the iMac with the idea that I would get an adaptor for it and run as a second monitor. But I never hooked it up. The 27" has plenty of screen real estate, and I use the old Mac Pro sometimes as well. For example, in a project involving old 78rpm disks, I let the Pro digitize them while I was working on cleaning up audio on the iMac. I use default settings for display, where 100% view in Photoshop is really half size. So you have to go to 200% to pixel peep. Rumor is that the next iMac to come out will still have a 27" screen. 

A friend uses a 32" monitor with his Mac mini, the new M1 model. He runs MacOS, Windows 11, and Linux simultaneously in different windows. (He's an amazing guy. Besides doing consulting in fields that I don't even understand the name of the fields, he plays a variety of woodwind instruments, and long ago appeared as the title character in a Spencer Tracy movie.) I'll decide after the next iMac comes out between it and getting the faster mini that might come out about the same time along with a larger monitor. But for now, my aged 5K iMac still runs everything well, though it won't run the latest Mac OS.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 1, 2022)

stevelee said:


> [..]I'll decide after the next iMac comes out between it and getting the faster mini that might come out about the same time along with a larger monitor. But for now, my aged 5K iMac still runs everything well, though it won't run the latest Mac OS.


Same situation here, I find it to be an infuriating first world problem that getting a better screen than my 7 year old iMac involves spending >$5000. My hope is that 2023 will have a 2nd generation 27" iMac, new Minis and competitively priced 5k/6k monitors.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 1, 2022)

kaihp said:


> That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.
> 
> With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity.
> 
> My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.


I'd been eyeballing the BenQ stuff.....

That's actually likely what I'll pull the trigger on...just haven't figured which one yet. 

I was larger than 27" Dell that I have now, I need something bigger for my eyes that are aging badly.

C


----------



## cayenne (Mar 1, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Same situation here, I find it to be an infuriating first world problem that getting a better screen than my 7 year old iMac involves spending >$5000. My hope is that 2023 will have a 2nd generation 27" iMac, new Minis and competitively priced 5k/6k monitors.


I've got one of the newer Mac Pro machines, I pulled the trigger a couple years ago I think it was.
So, I've got plenty of video card power to run good monitor(s)....

I guess I"ll be looking at 32", but want to get a really good one to last me a long time....


----------



## HenryL (Mar 1, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....
> 
> I came across this the other day:
> 
> ...


QHD is 2560 x 1440, not 4K. That display is, as they say, equivalent to 2 27" monitors side by side.

I just recently updated my display from a 27" Viewsonic 2785-4K to a 32" BenQ SW321c (also 4K). The Viewsonic is fantastic, but both of my Mac's think it is a TV not a computer monitor and won't put out the correct signal without jumping through hoops - and OS updates tend to make it crazy again.

The BenQ, while 2x the cost, is phenomenal. I was leary because for me, 4K at 27" is perfect. I work on a laptop 90% of my day job, a 13" MacBook Pro. I do have a tendency to hunch forward in my chair though while I'm editing and part of it comes out of habit with that small portable screen

With 4K at 32", I am learning to sit upright and the stress on my neck/shoulders is decreasing significantly. The display itself is super color accurate, easy to profile (hardware calibration in the monitor itself), and the matte screen seems to eat light. I have never in my 25+ year IT career seen a display with an anti-glare coating like this. I have strong sidelight in the mornings, and it's no problem now. Once I got this thing mounted and opened up a few images, any regrets I had over the cost disappeared. I kept a 30" Dell U3011 for over 8 years, I hope this one lasts that long.

I hope you find one that suits you...a great display makes a HUGE difference.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 2, 2022)

HenryL said:


> QHD is 2560 x 1440, not 4K. That display is, as they say, equivalent to 2 27" monitors side by side.
> 
> I just recently updated my display from a 27" Viewsonic 2785-4K to a 32" BenQ SW321c (also 4K). The Viewsonic is fantastic, but both of my Mac's think it is a TV not a computer monitor and won't put out the correct signal without jumping through hoops - and OS updates tend to make it crazy again.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the info!!
I"ll take a look at that BENQ monitor you mentioned, sounds like it has what I"m looking for.

My old Dell U2711 is looking a bit long in the tooth, but I could use it as a 2nd monitor perhaps, to get some further use out of it....

Thank you again,

C


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 3, 2022)

kaihp said:


> That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.
> 
> With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity.
> 
> My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.


This is timely for me as my 11 year old Dell UltraSharp just failed on me (It was never that sharp anyway). Since I am staying at 27" and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I was thinking a 100% sRGB (Pantone approved marketing hype) IPS 2k panel might be a great option. Looking at Viewsonic ColorPro and others.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 4, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> This is timely for me as my 11 year old Dell UltraSharp just failed on me (It was never that sharp anyway). Since I am staying at 27" and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I was thinking a 100% sRGB (Pantone approved marketing hype) IPS 2k panel might be a great option. Looking at Viewsonic ColorPro and others.


BenQ has a couple of 27" options with 2560 x 1440 resolution. Take a look at the PD, PV and SW series.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 4, 2022)

Hopefully sooner than later. My two 5DSr's are over the 100K mark and looking pretty ragged. It would be nice not to have to switch over to the Sony platform.

I would have no problems with larger file sizes (very less uncompressed CR files would be nice). Also closer to the 100 MP sensor size would be a delight to see from Canon.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 4, 2022)

MrToes said:


> Hopefully sooner than later. My two 5DSr's are over the 100K mark and looking pretty ragged. It would be nice not to have to switch over to the Sony platform.
> 
> I would have no problems with larger file sizes (very less uncompressed CR files would be nice). Also closer to the 100 MP sensor size would be a delight to see from Canon.


I love my canon gear, etc....

But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.

The price is reasonable for Digital MF, and the resolution is amazing. I have the original GFX100 that I use for that niche...and it is pretty spectacular.

Again, not promoting anything over Canon, but if the new Canon doesn't get out in time for you, I'd suggest looking Fuji over for this over Sony...


----------



## stevelee (Mar 4, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I love my canon gear, etc....
> 
> But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.
> 
> ...


If I bought a camera any time soon, I’d get the 100S. I really don’t shoot enough landscapes to justify getting it. It is not in stock, so not a good choice for an impulse purchase. I could afford two lenses with it, but don’t know which ones I would get. But as we move into spring, I won’t guarantee that I will continue to resist the purchase. Reality is that my 6D2 is still great for anything I do. And if I go to Norway this summer or next, the scenic shots will be made with my G5X II no matter how good the cameras and lenses are that I leave at home.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 6, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I love my canon gear, etc....
> 
> But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.
> 
> ...





cayenne said:


> I love my canon gear, etc....
> 
> But if by chance your current cameras fail and you need something, I'd highly recommend rather than Sony, you look into the Fuji GFX 100S camera if you need really high megapixel action.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply, that looks like a promising camera also. I've also looked at the other Medium Format cameras in the 100 MP range. As with anything else, it's demoralizing when shortly after you purchase one, the full frame cameras come out in the same MP range at half the price. But you never know, the right situation might entice me enough to lug around a Medium Format box!


----------



## Vilacom (Mar 6, 2022)

My fingers are cross this is both true and will be out before April of next year, going to Africa with my father and would LOVE a high megapixel mirror less body i could buy and take with me. Fingers Crossed!


----------



## stevelee (Mar 6, 2022)

MrToes said:


> Thanks for the reply, that looks like a promising camera also. I've also looked at the other Medium Format cameras in the 100 MP range. As with anything else, it's demoralizing when shortly after you purchase one, the full frame cameras come out in the same MP range at half the price. But you never know, the right situation might entice me enough to lug around a Medium Format box!


The 100S is not *that* much bigger and heavier than the top end of Canon’s and Sony’s lines and not that much more expensive. And it is not just a matter of megapixels. The larger size sensor has other advantages over “full frame.” Whether those advantages will make a difference to your picture taking or show anything improved in your final product is a question to ponder before buying. For me the answer if rather obviously No. But I would like to have such a good camera for mostly aesthetic reasons. Reason has prevailed for me so far.


----------



## ron6771 (Mar 11, 2022)

There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2022)

ron6771 said:


> There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?


You have just joined CR and have not read the hundreds of posts that show that most of what you claim about the deficiencies of high megapixels is largely false when you view the output of the full frame at the same viewing size in inches or cm or what you will. Here is a website that measures dynamic range, ability to raise shadows in post, noise etc and you can play with various cameras there and see how you are wrong: photonstophotos.net. When it comes to shake from hand holding, the movement across the output image is independent of resolution - think about it. Here are the dynamic ranges of the 45 Mpx R5 and 20 Mpx 1DXIII and the shadow improvements from photonstophotos. The Nikon high resolution sensors are also similarly at least as good or better than their low resolution counterparts.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2022)

ron6771 said:


> The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?


Which newer lenses are you using currently?


----------



## cayenne (Mar 14, 2022)

ron6771 said:


> There is an obsession regarding high megapixel cameras. A parellel in cars would be the Dodge Viper, which had a 1000 horsepower engine but bad handling on the road. Megapixels is only one aspect of sensors. Far more important is dynamic range, color sensitivity response, rendition, ability to raise shadows in post, etc. The higher the megapixel count, the more difficult to excel in these other areas. Let alone the ability to handhold a camera without shake, which becomes increasingly difficult with higher megapixels. Canon, even with the latest generation sensors, has had lower dynamic range and particularly the ability to raise shadows in post without banding and noise. The same applies to lenses like Sigma Art with the obsession on sharpness. Only one aspect of a lens performance. The older lenses had a 3d quality and rendition that the newer lenses don’t. It is called character. Newer lenses are sterile and flat. What is it with the compulsion to have ultra sharpness and minute detail at the expenses of more important qualities?


Well, as technology progresses, it can address the weaknesses as you describe.

The last Vipers to come out, had some really good electronic help on the suspension, etc...so as to keep the car on the road and it wasn't in as much danger of the driver losing control.
Of course you could turn those safety measures of if you wanted a bit of the raw power to toy with....

The Fuji GFX100 line has shown that a large sensor with high MP count....paired with IBIS, you can indeed hand hold at MUCH slower shutter speeds than you'd expect and come out with pristine images.

IMHO, the limitation with higher and higher MP is trying to stuff them into a FF sensor, rather than enlarging the sensor.

Larger sensors, IBIS and who knows what in the future, will allow ease in higher MP that are effective. 

As for lenses, I do agree with you. Today's lenses are getting towards perfection....but they also have what many call a "clinical" quality.

One of the main things I like about modern mirrorless cameras is the ability to readily adapt the older, manual lenses that have character to your modern digital camera and use a bit of that 3D or bokeh magic you just don't get with modern lenses.

Sure they are full manual, but with digital focus adjust, there's really no problem catching focus with full manual lenses. Hell, I can even do it with my bad eyesight.


Just my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## AlanF (Mar 14, 2022)

cayenne said:


> IMHO, the limitation with higher and higher MP is trying to stuff them into a FF sensor, rather than enlarging the sensor.


If you want the best possible image, then sure, use as large a sensor as possible, but, the consequence is that you need to use larger and longer focal length lenses to maintain a field of view. If you want portable hand-holdable gear with long reach, you have stuff as many pixels as is necessary into a smaller sensor.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you want the best possible image, then sure, use as large a sensor as possible, but, the consequence is that you need to use larger and longer focal length lenses to maintain a field of view. If you want portable hand-holdable gear with long reach, you have stuff as many pixels as is necessary into a smaller sensor.


If I get a medium format(ish) camera, I would use it to take landscapes mainly. I would often use a tripod. So the size, weight, and need for longer focal lengths would not be an issue. With IBIS, I'd likely take more handheld shots than I suspect now.

But someone who wants high resolution because they want to see every feather on a bird flying very high, the requirements are very different. It is a matter of the best tool for the job.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2022)

stevelee said:


> If I get a medium format(ish) camera, I would use it to take landscapes mainly. I would often use a tripod. So the size, weight, and need for longer focal lengths would not be an issue.


What if those photogenic landscapes require access on foot to get to them ? The only place I have found unwieldy, heavy camera gear to not be a disadvantage is in the studio.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 16, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> What if those photogenic landscapes require access on foot to get to them ? The only place I have found unwieldy, heavy camera gear to not be a disadvantage is in the studio.


I wouldn't put the GFX100S in the unwieldy heavy camera category myself....

cayenne


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 16, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I wouldn't put the GFX100S in the unwieldy heavy camera category myself....
> 
> cayenne


When my bag is fully loaded (Lowepro ProTactic 350) with a tripod attached, I really wouldn't know the difference between 1-3 pounds more or less. Conversely when I am traveling light (with my Tenba 10l) I seem to notice a difference in ounces, go figure.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 16, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> When my bag is fully loaded (Lowepro ProTactic 350) with a tripod attached, I really wouldn't know the difference between 1-3 pounds more or less. Conversely when I am traveling light (with my Tenba 10l) I seem to notice a difference in ounces, go figure.


According to Einstein, it’s Relativity.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I wouldn't put the GFX100S in the unwieldy heavy camera category myself....
> 
> cayenne


Nor would I until you add lenses and a suitable tripod….


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> When my bag is fully loaded (Lowepro ProTactic 350) with a tripod attached, I really wouldn't know the difference between 1-3 pounds more or less. Conversely when I am traveling light (with my Tenba 10l) I seem to notice a difference in ounces, go figure.


I can relate to this, but I think in the former case it takes a longer time before the difference is felt.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 16, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> What if those photogenic landscapes require access on foot to get to them ? The only place I have found unwieldy, heavy camera gear to not be a disadvantage is in the studio.


Then I am quite unlikely to trudge there with my DSLR either. One of the main reasons I have (mostly) talked myself out of buying a GFX100S is that I doubt I would really suddenly start shooting a lot more landscapes even if I bought one. I do see YouTube videos by landscape photographers who have adopted the camera, and they are hiking all over the place to get their shots.

I travel with my G5X II, so in reality most of my landscapes are shot with that. The 120mm end of the zoom is rarely an issue. I feel more limited by the 24mm limit, and find myself taking shots to be stitched when I get home to compensate. So that informs what lenses I would choose if I bought the Fuji.

Now I am likely to spend my spare cash on a new Mac Studio anyway. On a train to DC last week I watched the Apple event on my iPad, and then I watched a Zoom call from the ISS.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Nor would I until you add lenses and a suitable tripod….


I'd say about the same as a R5 or potentially a R3?
(comparing in size, bulk, etc to GFX100S).


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 18, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I'd say about the same as a R5 or potentially a R3?
> (comparing in size, bulk, etc to GFX100S).


When adding some of the monstrous RF lenses and a suitable tripod to hold it all steady, I'd say yes ! I appreciate that the Fujica is isn't much larger than a FF DSLR and that some of the lenses are probably smaller, but my response was to Steve's post that I quoted; big, heavy gear and tripod to match enabling you to capture the last word in IQ sounds wonderful for landscape photography but the reality of capturing those stunning images is about being in the right place at the right time. Often lugging all that gear about can hinder you being there, that's all I'm saying. Landscape images that I get from my 5DS, best lenses and a heavy 058 tripod are stunning in IQ but they are rarely the most compelling ones due to accessibility issues. Having said that my most successful landscape image was shot on a 5DS and Tamron 85/1.8 VC which together makes quite a lump.


----------



## Vilacom (Mar 21, 2022)

Would absolutely love this to come out in time for my trip to Africa next year, this plus a rental for a 600mm F4 would make for a perfect setup for the trip, hoping for an r5 form factor with the smart controller. COME ON CANON TAKE MY MONEY


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

canonnews said:


> shoot that with the 1200 F8L and a few teleconvertors and NASA wasted 10 billion on the james webb



Would it even turn on at a temperature of 30K? You'd also obviously need to remove the IR filter from the sensor stack, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> After having 2 cameras that hit the same numbers at the same time, I have exiftool rename files on import to date-camera-lens-originalname. And in the viewer I sort them based on capture date, DPP4 is really bad at it, LR and DXO pretty good.
> 
> Depending on how you download the files, the filesystem can keep the modification date when copying. That only works if you’re using a card reader, though.





unfocused said:


> That's interesting. I never noticed that. Mostly I am using 256gb Sandisk, with some 128 Sandisk and ProGrade Gold thrown in.
> 
> I have one 512gb card, but I don't really like to use it because a weird thing happens -- with CRaw the number of files that the card can hold from the R3 exceeds the R3 default file numbering and Canon does a weird thing, where when it starts over and adds a "-1" to the file name. The result is that when you download the files, they are no longer in the shot order and even more frustrating, they alternate from one to another so that you might have 1,000 files where, say, a sequence has a single men's basketball game shot, then a single women's basketball game shot, then a men's, then a woman's. Royal pain in the butt to get them back into the proper order.




I've found DPP 4 really good at sorting by date/time taken and then renaming in the order they are displayed on screen.

I import with original filename. I also have the file name prefixes set differently in each camera from the default IMG_xxxx.cr2. My 5D Mark IV is MC54xxxx.cr2. My 5D Mark III is MC53xxxx.cr2. My 7D Mark II is MC72xxxx.cr2. Thus, no file names with a "_1" tacked on at import if the file numbers from each camera overlap.

If I were shooting enough frames with one body on the same day to go past 9999 images it would be trivial to sort by date/time taken, put each game/event into a separate folder, and then rename them all with different prefixes for each folder. Or one could even change the prefix in camera before shooting the next event/game.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> I actually went even more drastic. I went from an R5 and R6 (primary and backup) to two R6s about 3-4 months ago. I still have the R5, but it's used in a dedicated copy stand setup for something else and not for general purpose shooting like my two R6s. I know a lot of wedding/event photographers that went from 5DM4 or the original R to the R6. Do I wish the R6 had more resolution? Heck yeah, but at the same time, I primarily shoot portraits and headshots and weddings and events and most of my work is either printed at book size or used directly online as profile photos, and frankly, if your output is 240-300 pixels per inch on paper (or even smaller for screen), the R6 is more than enough resolution. I have grips on both my R6s and would love to do 2 R3s, but they're just too expensive, so two R6s is where it's at for me for at least the next couple of years. If I absolutely have to have the resolution, I can take the R5 off the copy stand and use it, but in all reality, the R6 is plenty of resolution for my type of work, and for stills photography is basically a mirrorless 1DXMIII with two fast SD cards. I used to have an original R (before the R5) and still use an RP for my personal camera and in all honesty, from a resolution standpoint, I'm pretty hard pressed to see sharpness differences between them without looking at the metadata to see which is which. I'm sure if I take exactly the same shot with the same lens but different body and compare them I'd see the differences, if I pixel peeked, but outside of that. Nope. They all look sharp and I'm rarely cropping in so far that my final output isn't still scaled down.



But... but... but... You're thinking in terms of what the final output looks like to your customer, not what the original resolution looks like pixel peeping at 100% on your screen, or what bragging rights a "100% crop" uploaded to an internet forum can get you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 23, 2022)

Joules said:


> In other words, one group of people getting what they want from Canon should not affect any aspect of the other groups they serve.



At least, it didn't until IC chips became a rare commodity...


----------



## adrian_bacon (Apr 4, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But... but... but... You're thinking in terms of what the final output looks like to your customer


Which is what pays the bills, and is reality... I prefer to operate in reality. I don't care what it looks like pixel peeping at 100% on my display. The only people who will ever see that is me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 15, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Which is what pays the bills, and is reality... I prefer to operate in reality. I don't care what it looks like pixel peeping at 100% on my display. The only people who will ever see that is me.


----------

