# 120MP Canon FF SLR showed off again yesterday



## ahsanford (May 20, 2016)

http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/canon-120mp-appears-at-canon-expo

Looks like they've just stuffed it in a 5D3/5DS body unless I'm missing something. Still just a tech demo like the last time it was shown off.

214 MB RAW files, yowza.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

Maybe it is not initally planned as a full-raw output, but instead the 214MP will be downsample to 30-ish? That is one way of overcoming the noise problem.


----------



## IglooEater (May 20, 2016)

This could be what, the 5ds II, or maybe a 1Ds IV? 220mb files- ouch


----------



## IglooEater (May 20, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Maybe it is not initally planned as a full-raw output, but instead the 214MP will be downsample to 30-ish? That is one way of overcoming the noise problem.



Well that's a point. Kind of like multi-shot noise reduction without needing to take several shots. On the other hand your starting out with (much!) smaller pixels which will have more trouble with noise to start out with.

Canon seems to be talking about this in regards to it's large resolution, so I'd be surprised to see it used for downsampling.


----------



## lw (Sep 21, 2016)

Making an appearance at Photokina 2016 too.
nice video of the camera in use this time in AP magazine
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/watch-canon-show-off-a-120mp-sensor-eos-5ds-in-photokina-tech-demo-95831


----------



## Jopa (Sep 21, 2016)

Need dis. My precious.......


----------



## zim (Sep 21, 2016)

How about a limited edition 1Dx120s, hand build to pre-order. Ignoring camera collectors wonder how many pros would bite and at what cost?

Oh and duel pixel..... 240MP anyone!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 21, 2016)

Full frame?

Is this a new sensor? The previous demo was APS-H.


----------



## LordofTackle (Sep 22, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Full frame?
> Is this a new sensor? The previous demo was APS-H.



According to the linked page it still is...



lw said:


> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/watch-canon-show-off-a-120mp-sensor-eos-5ds-in-photokina-tech-demo-95831





> Canon displays the EOS 5DS fitted with a 120-million-pixel APS-H CMOS sensor at Photokina 2016


----------



## pwp (Sep 22, 2016)

Halo marketing hoopla...

-pw


----------



## John2016 (Sep 22, 2016)

Available in 128 years... YAWN ;D


----------



## canon1dxman (Sep 22, 2016)

John2016 said:


> Available in 128 years... YAWN ;D



------but only for pre order then


----------



## weixing (Sep 22, 2016)

canon1dxman said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > Available in 128 years... YAWN ;D
> ...


Hi,
Just bring your 5DS and swap with Canon... ha ha ha 

Anyway, is the lens a EF 24-70mm F2.8L? So that lens is good for 120MP?

Have a nice day.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 22, 2016)

Hopefully they at least give us a 50MP APS-C sensor sometime. I want more pixel density.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I want more pixel density.



Why ?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2016)

When I consider the difficulty of getting maximum performance out of the 5DSR, I cannot see why I should want a 120MP FF sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 22, 2016)

Eldar said:


> When I consider the difficulty of getting maximum performance out of the 5DSR, I cannot see why I should want a 120MP FF sensor.



Because you'll get an increase in the detail in your photos even if you don't "maximize" performance.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > When I consider the difficulty of getting maximum performance out of the 5DSR, I cannot see why I should want a 120MP FF sensor.
> ...



Perhaps for people who's pleasure is looking at images on their computer screen at 100%. And if that's the case, fair enough. Put for those of us that are producing printed images, even quite large ones, it's zilch. Alarmingly so in fact. 

If you are chasing extreme detail you are better off with fewer pixels on a larger format IMO.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


For very different price tho...
Sensor resolution at certain sensor size is not that expensive. Especially with newer tech...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I disagree. If you are chasing extreme detail, you are better off with more pixels on a larger format.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > When I consider the difficulty of getting maximum performance out of the 5DSR, I cannot see why I should want a 120MP FF sensor.
> ...



In what world ? Dilbertland ? 

You've forgotten the influence of original capture size on IQ.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I was meaning a larger format with less pixels than a smaller format, not specifically a lower resolution large format. For instance I would expect a 50 MP DMF to be better than 120 MP FF.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



don't know why you would.

assuming you are talking about the 44x33 MF size, the 120MP would run circles around it the amount you can oversample that 120MP over the 50?


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I want more pixel density.
> ...



Focal length limited.
Primarily Macro, that's most of what I love to do with cameras, you just take tiny snips of however much detail you can get.
But it would be good for wildlife and landscapes too. Lenses these days are crazy sharp.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



You'd expect better detail out of half the spatial resolution?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 22, 2016)

Just arrived home after three days a Photokina. Took along the 5D MKIV (more on that when images are downloaded). 
First stop was a tour of the C700 (only one camera at show, one was also at Cinec in Munich), the camera functionally is very close to the Sony F55 (which was also on the Sony stand with its new 4K raw recorder). The C700 expert was unable to say what the anamorphic output would be and was unaware of a future 4:3 sensor (however CVP say its in the works likely at NAB 2017). 
Onto the expert bar and mount the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII and fire off a few shots, could not get to try the EF 16-35mm f2.8L IS USM MKIII, headed to the 8K camera and 8K monitors, yep they work but didn't really telling me anything. Stopped by the 120MP camera which I was told is housed in a 5DS body. 220MB files, hell the 88MB 5DS files are bad enough. 
The M5 was mobbed, looks like it will be a hit for Canon and is well made, it reminded me of a G7 X MKII control wise with inter-changeable lenses but that's no bad thing. 
Rest of the stand was unimpressive and not up to Canon usual standards at Photokina which seems to get smaller every two years. 
Highlight of the show? Sigma remounted Art primes & zooms for cinema in both super 35 and vistavision/ff they were very well made cannot wait to MTF them and get them on a projector.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 24, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



In terms of _clarity_ in print, yes. In terms of spatial resolution ? Well my understanding of _spatial_ resolution is that you have to compare the same size. Clearly DMF and FF are not.

Obviously I don't have a 120 mp FF camera to compare, but I do still have the 12.7 mp 5D and can compare this to a 24 mp crop sensor. Working on linear resolution the 24 mp M3 crop sensor has more resolution, producing an image that is about 37 larger along the long side, and a theoretical increase in resolution of about 15%. 

However, that's the theory. The 5D at capture has twice the area of the M3, it's a greater magnification of the subject and that in itself creates more _definition_. To show this I'm attaching some screen grabs of what I see in practice. One is shot on the 5D, the other the M3. The former uses the 40/2.8 @ f/5.6, the latter the 28/2.8 @f/4, so both lenses about the same in resolution potential in the centre. Studio tripod. 

Files from both cameras have been increased to an output size of 36" long side, so thats 8640 pixels on the long side at 240 dpi. So the M3 has gone up from 6,000, the 5D a massive doubling of the long side from 4368. 

Now there is a discrepancy in the size of the subject due to the lack of a total match in FOV. But even so it is quite clear to me that the 12.6 mp 5D is better, despite the fact that it is "much lower resolution". Of course in actual fact it isn't much lower, but still, increasing the size of the file cannot create detail resolved that was not recorded in the first place. 

You could argue that the 40 is better than the 28, but that is the reality of larger sensor vs smaller: the larger will use a longer focal length for the same FOV whether that be FF to crop or DMF to FF etc. 

So the moral of the story is that pixel density resolution is one thing, sensor size is another. You can't take one without calculating the other, which is why "spatial" resolution applies to the same size capture. 

Or at least that's what I think


----------



## bjd (Sep 24, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> This could be what, the 5ds II, or maybe a 1Ds IV? 220mb files- ouch


But I already have non-cropped RAW files between 33 and 40MB, and they equate to TIFFs
out of LR uncompressed (?) with around 170MB. Resaved from PS with LZW gave me 200MB.
Resaved from PS with ZIP compression gave me 150MB.

Obviously the 120MP would be even worse.

Cheers Brian


----------



## brianftpc (Sep 25, 2016)

Im curious how this camera would be for astrophotography. Im starting to use my 5DsR for that now and playing with stacking tons of images. I definitely like the images more than with my 1Dx mk2 for astrophotography however the 5DsR's autofocus cant cut it on moving objects so its just a photoshoot/play around with camera.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2016)

In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor. I know there are folks who have samples where the smaller pixels of their crop cameras resolve a similar amount of detail as the same amount of pixels on a FF sensor - but that is not my experience. Yes, with each increase in MPs you will resolve more detail than the lesser MP camera, but I believe without using a tripod, camera shake and the limits of your lens, will make the increase in MPs much smaller than you think.

Before buying my 6D a few years ago, I rented a 60D as well and then took similar shots with those 2 cameras, as well as my 300D (6 MP) camera. The 6D and the 60D have similar total pixels (20 MP to 18 MP) so one might suppose that the detail and sharpness would be similar - and certainly both would be much better than the 300D. Well, that's not how it turned out. The 6D image is much sharper and there is very little difference between the 18 and 6 MP cameras -even though I upsampled the 300d image to match the size of the 60d image.

Granted, I am sure there are folks who will and can do much more scientific tests. But the conclusion I come up with is that the resolving power of the smaller pixels of the crop camera are greatly reduced to to camera shake and potential limitations of the lens. (I was using an older 28-75mm non-L lens). In other words, even though it was 18MP, the actual result was similar to using, let's say, a 10 MP crop camera. So, hand held, due to the smaller pixels, the 50MP Canons may actually produce images equal to using a tripod on a 24-30MP camera. A 120 MP camera may not produce images any sharper than a 40-50 MP camera. These numbers are obviously total guesses, but hopefully the idea comes across.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2016)

Wait, is the contention that different resolution sensors of the same phsyical size don't... resolve much differently?

I have a 5Ds and a 5D3... I'm happy to take side by side shots if it'll help anyone. I just tried, but tbh I'm not sure how best to display them so as to show whatever people want to see, or what subjects are best (text?).

Fwiw here's two shots. The only thing that leaps out at me (apart from the difference in resolution in the originals - these are resized) is the 5Ds has considerably better contrast. But is that just how Lightroom processes the raws by default? PS the framing is ever so slightly off, I must have moved the lens when I mounted the second camera.

(Camera attached to tripod-mounted lens; Live View manual focus - focus unchanged between shots; 70-200L IS II; 102mm, f/8, ISO 400, 2s timer delay).


----------



## tron (Sep 27, 2016)

Eldar said:


> When I consider the difficulty of getting maximum performance out of the 5DSR, I cannot see why I should want a 120MP FF sensor.


Maybe but wouldn't you be tempted to use it with your 600mm to shoot birds? (at least standing ones)


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 27, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


Try selling to magazines one day...


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 27, 2016)

dak723 said:


> In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor...
> (...)
> ...These numbers are obviously total guesses



Camera shake _*may sometimes*_ have an influence. But mostly will have none at all because you can just bump the speed.

And if - if - there's camera shake, you will get as much or little camera induced blur no matter what MPIX you are shooting at; be it 6, 36 or 66 MPIX. So unless your claim is that camera shake makes hand held photography impossible (which is not the case) - there is no draw back due to camera shake with a high MPIX camera.

However, if you shoot at decent speeds, hold your camera still or have a support you will benefit greatly from the extra MPIX and get far sharper pictures with 50 MPIX camera than anything from a 25 MPIX camera.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 28, 2016)

dak723 said:


> ...but I believe without using a tripod, camera shake and the limits of your lens, will make the increase in MPs much smaller than you think.



Sorry, but you're doing it wrong.
There's nothing stopping anyone from accounting for camera shake with a faster shutter speed set according to pixel density.
If you're shooting correctly camera shake will have exactly the same effect on pixel level sharpness.

If you're light limited, then ISO can be a problem, but that's the sort of decision everyone has to make in limited shooting conditions.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> Im curious how this camera would be for astrophotography. Im starting to use my 5DsR for that now and playing with stacking tons of images. I definitely like the images more than with my 1Dx mk2 for astrophotography however the 5DsR's autofocus cant cut it on moving objects so its just a photoshoot/play around with camera.



umm I think you have a problem with your camera or your expectations perhaps if you think the 5DsR AF can't cut it on moving objects.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2016)

dak723 said:


> In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor. I know there are folks who have samples where the smaller pixels of their crop cameras resolve a similar amount of detail as the same amount of pixels on a FF sensor - but that is not my experience.



no offense. but you're wrong. if this was the case no one would be using 24MP cropped cameras that are more pixel dense than the current full frame cameras.

IMO .. crop users are just a little better and more understanding of learning how to use their tools apparently and NOT getting bent out of shape over pixel amount.

Pixel density affects:
- diffraction (resolved mostly with today's modern technologies)
- motion blurr
- camera shake.

what more Mp's allows you to do is still maintain the above, once you adjust for the different in pixel density.

You can still hand hold the 5DSr or even a 120MP camera as long as you realize what the 1/ focal ratio is.. as the pixel density goes up, so will the ratio. Croppers know this.. why don't full framers?

then you have what those pixels will do for you in the case of a 120Mp camera. look up oversampling.

you will get cleaner, sharper, more clarity, less digital artifacts at a given print size between a 30MP camera and a 120MP camera which is twice the resolution.

those 120Mp pixels also allow you to do more computational post processing and still have more pixels in the end than the 30Mp camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor. I know there are folks who have samples where the smaller pixels of their crop cameras resolve a similar amount of detail as the same amount of pixels on a FF sensor - but that is not my experience.
> ...



But the individual pixels are not as well defined, and so whilst this is fine for making images up to the native resolution at a given dpi, once you have to go larger than native size the interpolation can work much better with better definition pixels, _one_ of the reasons why on my example the "low" resolution 5D sized up to 36" @ 240 dpi looks to have better _definition_ than the 24 mp crop sensor. If you look closely at the two images at full size you can actually see that the M3 has slightly more resolution in the letters. 

I would make a guess that with current lenses etc there would be little difference between a 50 mp FF camera and a 120 mp one - apart from the larger output size of the latter.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor...
> ...



No, I am not claiming that camera shake makes hand held photography impossible. Nor am I saying there is any drawback from camera shake with a high MP camera. You will gain more detail and resolution with an increase in MP. What I am saying is that the amount of gain may not be as much as you hope (or think) if you are not using a tripod. Again, I was not doing scientific testing - I was just comparing the FF camera with 2 crop cameras. Based on what I shot, the 18MP crop camera resolved more detail than the 6 MP camera. A 36 MP camera will also resolve more than the 18 MP. But because of camera shake and possible lens limitations, the higher MP camera may have similar detail and resolution as a lower resolution camera UNLESS you use a tripod. 

I had a long discussion with an expert in optics who told me that smaller pixels enable one to get finer detail IF the lens has the resolution and the camera does not move as much. Otherwise, the higher MPS will have only a little benefit. My limited experiments agree with that assessment.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > In my limited experience, adding MPs has little benefit compared to going with a larger sensor. I know there are folks who have samples where the smaller pixels of their crop cameras resolve a similar amount of detail as the same amount of pixels on a FF sensor - but that is not my experience.
> ...



I take no offense, but my EXPERIENCE is that the larger pixels in the FF camera gave me substantially better image quality than a more pixel dense crop sensor of approximately the same MPs when hand held and using that particular lens. So, no I was not wrong. That was my experience and I reported it accurately. 

As I mentioned, the lens is an older one, and that certainly may have effected my results. It was not a scientific test, as I mentioned. If you have examples that show the opposite to be true, I would be glad to see them. Your insinuation that I do not know how to use a crop camera I will ignore. At the time I took the photos, I had ONLY owned crop cameras and know quite well how to use them. The next time I try out a camera may well be when I can get my hands on the new M5. I will definitely be taking comparison shots with the M5 and my 6D. I am definitely hoping that the images will be of equal IQ. since I would much rather walk around with a smaller camera.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2016)

dak723 said:


> I take no offense, but my EXPERIENCE is that the larger pixels in the FF camera gave me substantially better image quality than a more pixel dense crop sensor of approximately the same MPs when hand held and using that particular lens. So, no I was not wrong. That was my experience and I reported it accurately.



Assuming you have two images framed the same and at the same output size, with the crop sensor camera you are magnifying the image more which makes it harder to get the same resolution especially with lenses of different generations.
If your premise were true it would fly in the face of people who say their 50MP 5DSR has more resolution than the 5Diii


----------



## dak723 (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> If your premise were true it would fly in the face of people who say their 50MP 5DSR has more resolution than the 5Diii



What exactly is it about my fairly simple English sentences that is causing every person who has replied to misunderstand what I have written. I am not saying you need agree with me. I am not saying that you can't have different results. What I have said is twofold:

1) I think larger pixels in a FF camera will give you more resolution (or perhaps it is merely more sharpness) than *the same amount of pixels* in a crop camera using the same lens.

2) That, as pixels get smaller with increasing MPs, the resulting gains in resolution will be minimized by camera shake and possibly deficiencies in the lens's ability to resolve the details.

Of course, the 50MP FF camera has more resolution than the 22 MP 5D mark III. What I am saying is that - without using a tripod - you will not get the full benefit of the increased resolution. You may not get very much of that benefit - I am just guessing at the amount of benefit. For example: Let's say that when using a tripod with your 5DIII, you get the full benefit of those 22 MPs. Let's say that without a tripod, the small amount of camera shake might blur the image slightly, thus reducing the resolution to that of an 18 MP camera on a tripod. Now, we take our 50 MP camera and put it on a tripod. Let's say we get the full benefit of those 50 MPs. But now, due to pixels that are less than half the size, the amount of shake has a greater influence. Let's say that the 50 MP camera hand held, only gets the results of a 30 MP camera, hand held. Still more resolution, but not nearly as much as when using the tripod.

Again, this is just speculation, but is based on numerous comments from photographers and reviewers. I remember reading a number of reviews when Sony came out with their 36 MP FF sensor - comments such as "you need a tripod to get the full benefit of the new sensor, otherwise, hand-held, you may not notice any difference between the 36 MP sensor and a 24 MP sensor."

My premise is that as the pixels get even smaller - such as in a 120 Mp camera - the added benefit will also get smaller.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

I fully understand the English you are using. It is the description of your experience that is puzzling me



> without using a tripod - you will not get the full benefit of the increased resolution.



I agree with that completely - it is like putting a speed limiter on a sports car. But that does not sotp the 5DSR resolving more detail than the 5D3 or the 5D3 resolving more detail than the 5D2 (accepting this is made more complex by changing technologies between sensor generations).

Where your comments differ to those using the 5DSR is when you said 


> the larger pixels in the FF camera gave me substantially better image quality than a more pixel dense crop sensor of approximately the same MPs when hand held and using that particular lens.


Which reads to me that higher pixels giving a lower image quality being a simple fact of life. 



> I think larger pixels in a FF camera will give you more resolution (or perhaps it is merely more sharpness) *than the same amount of pixels in a crop* camera using the same lens.


I was not denying your experience but what I said was also true - those with the 5DSR have repeatedly said they get more detail out of the 5DSR even handheld.
But this is where there are so many variables. The bit in bold suggests that you have (to pluck numbers out of the air) 200,000 5D pixels imaging the eye of the model and you have 200,000 5DSR pixels imaging the eye of the model and the 5D will give better image quality. I generally agree as there is more per-pixel noise on the 5DSR and in theory this would hold if it were 200,000 5DSR pixels of 200,000 7D2 pixels. 

But it also depends on how you use the camera and this is where making bald statements like 'higher pixel density gives lower image quality' seems strange. With wildlife you are often limited in where you can stand in relation to the subject so it is less about 'the same number of pixels' as 'shoot form a specific position' which gives more pixels on a particular part of the image. 
In a lot of townscapes or landscapes you are limited to where you can stand to get a specific perspective so you change lens, not change position. Again this gives more pixels on any given subject. 

Also, IME of comparing my 6D and 7D2 I have noted something that I have read in some reviews that the 7D2 has a tad more noise but resolves more detail which adds a bit of spice to the definition of 'image quality' and here everyone has their own limits/preferences.


----------

