# Canon releases financials and lays out advanced EOS R plans



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 30, 2020)

> Canon has released its financials for 2019 and opens up about the future of their mirrorless plans in their corporate summary.
> Although we have launched two full-frame mirrorless cameras as well as ten dedicated lenses, our lineup is still insufficient. In order to recover from our late entry into the mirrorless camera market, we have plans to launch a model that incorporates a newly developed image sensor and image-processing engine that offer even more advanced features. We will work to raise our presence in the mirrorless camera category, leveraging large trade exhibitions around the world. Even amid increasing competition, we will expand sales of higher-end models driven by new products and aim for top market share even in the mirrorless camera market.
> Canon further explains they will continue to develop and release new RF lenses fairly quickly.
> 
> At the same time, we will expand our lineup of dedicated...



Continue reading...


----------



## Juangrande (Jan 30, 2020)

Any news on a high mega pixel body?


----------



## motofotog (Jan 30, 2020)

Canon sounds promising for the R lineup. 2020 will be interesting year.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 30, 2020)

Canon wants to make 2020 a banner year. They've been building up to this for a couple years now.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 30, 2020)

This is great news! Confirmation that the R5 & R6 specs are true. I am definitely very interested in the R5! And also very promising wording about future RF lenses!


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jan 30, 2020)

What happened to the high mexga pixel EOS R? After all that rumor circulations, it's now just, gone?


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> What happened to the high mexga pixel EOS R? After all that rumor circulations, it's now just, gone?


Looks like it........ 

I'm sure they will get around to one eventually but 45MP and lower seem to be their focus driven by video features I suspect.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.


 What's a production camera to you. you are talking crazy right now. How does having 8k or even 6k hurt you? Does the camera still take photos or not? If you dont want to use the video features dont. I have a car that has 4 seats and I only use 1 of them most of the time. You dont see me complaining.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 30, 2020)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> What happened to the high mexga pixel EOS R? After all that rumor circulations, it's now just, gone?


I don't see why it wouldn't still be on the way. The thing that didn't make sense to me was that they would put out a high-megapixel model before an all-around 5D-like successor. They need a camera that can appeal to a broad swath of shooters, and the R simply wasn't that. Good camera, but didn't bowl a lot of people over or win any hearts.


----------



## jazzytune (Jan 30, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> This is great news! Confirmation that the R5 & R6 specs are true. I am definitely very interested in the R5! And also very promising wording about future RF lenses!


So am I!!! A few months ago, I was planning to get the EOS R, but when I saw there were rumours about new mirrorless camera bodies coming out in 2020 I decided to hold on that expense and keep saving! 

If the mentioned specs about the R5 are true (especially those below), I will most likely get one!

*45 mp full-frame CMOS sensor*
*IBIS*
5 stops with IBIS alone
7-8 stops of correction when used with in-lens stabilization

*12 fps mechanical, 20 fps electronic*
That's more than good enough for what I do and with that kind of specs, it will likely be my camera for many years to come!  The video specs are appealing although I rarely have the need to shoot in 4K at the moment.

I'm just hoping that it will also be very good in low light situations (doesn't have to be the greatest) ...


----------



## Tony Bennett (Jan 30, 2020)

I have a feeling the new R5 will be higher-priced then previous releases. I'm thinking this camera with anything near these specs will be $3999-$4500. Most of us will buy it at either of those prices. Of course I'd love for it to be cheaper but I have my doubts.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.





RayValdez360 said:


> what's a production cameras to you. you are talking crazy right now. How does having 8k or even 6 k hurts you? does the camera still take photos or not? If you dont want to use the video features dont. I have a car that has 4 seats and I only use 1 of them most of the time. You dont see me complaining.


I think the OP's point is valid.

Invest in the R system on the premise more resolution is coming to then find out its a video camera that also takes stills.


----------



## mcfrlnd (Jan 30, 2020)

Really looking forward to the R5 and R6...crossing my fingers they'll mostly match the hype. I also hope Canon will be aggressive with their pricing to increase their mirrorless market share.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Jan 30, 2020)

No word of eye/facial or pet recognition technology improvements in any of these yet. Also, if this had the 'Smart Controller' found on the 1DX3 this would be a slam dunk.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.




They have to develop the sensor once. If they make a high resolution sensor with let's say 20fps for stills,
having 8K 30fps is not a big step from that point.

Yes, they might need to add a faster CPU and bit better heat management but having 8K is 
eventually inevitable.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> I have a feeling the new R5 will be higher-priced then previous releases. I'm thinking this camera with anything near these specs will be $3999-$4500. Most of us will buy it at either of those prices. Of course I'd love for it to be cheaper but I have my doubts.


Yeah, I'm getting that feeling too. While I hope the R5 is sub-$4K, some of that was predicated on the idea that they wouldn't just go from R to R5 at nearly double the price without something in between. Now that there is talks of an R6, this gives them license to make the R5 in that $4-5K range.  Still hoping to be pleasantly surprised though. Something like $1500 for the R, $2600 for the R6 and $3500 for the R5.


----------



## Stuart (Jan 30, 2020)

"expand sales of higher-end models" So plans for more mirrorless FF units sold. Perhaps not expecting to expand other areas, such as APS-c

This seems like a very bold news release from Canon and has much more energy than their usual reticence in providing public product announcements ahead of time.


----------



## .jan (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> I think the OP's point is valid.
> 
> Invest in the R system on the premise more resolution is coming to then find out its a video camera that also takes stills.


Exactly! It's not like the ability to shoot 8K is somehow a welcome, but cost-free byproduct of devloping a stills camera.


----------



## .jan (Jan 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> They have to develop the sensor once. If they make a high resolution sensor with let's say 20fps for stills,
> having 8K 30fps is not a big step from that point.
> 
> Yes, they might need to add a faster CPU and bit better heat management but having 8K is
> eventually inevitable.


That's why the EOS R had full frame 6K instead of the cropped 4K the 5DIV already offered I guess? I mean after all it's a newer processor in the R, right?


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 30, 2020)

I don't care about your bodies – I just want more fancy lenses!

Give me that 14-28mm f/2 goodness!


----------



## DBounce (Jan 30, 2020)

I also believe the capabilities of the new additions to the EOS R family will be major upgrades. I think the video feature may well trump those of the 1DX Mk3, as that camera is sports/stills focused.
As for 8K raw? Quite possibly YES. This new processor and imaging sensor will be the next generation to carry the Canon premium mirrorless line into the 2020’s. I’m ready to embrace the new king of mirrorless.

Canon, can we also have a large rear display? That’s all that’s missing.


----------



## per.farny (Jan 30, 2020)

Also encouraging and in concert with quote from original post of 'expanding sales with higher end models': "Plan to i*mprove hardware* product *mix*, *focusing on professional and advanced-amateur market* segments *where demand remains stable*".


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.



honestly, 45MP is not enough for what you want? I'm sorry to hear that you think its not enough. I'm sure they wil have a 60-80mp camera this year as well, the majority want a 5D replacement, after that the higher mp slower fps one should come. I know they've been working on high mp sensors.


----------



## james75 (Jan 30, 2020)

Isn’t it rumored that four full frame cameras are to be released this year? So far I see three. Maybe the fourth one will be the high resolution model.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> honestly, 45MP is not enough for what you want? I'm sorry to hear that you think its not enough. I'm sure they wil have a 60-80mp camera this year as well, the majority want a 5D replacement, after that the higher mp slower fps one should come. I know they've been working on high mp sensors.



Yeah...I mean digital medium is out there and accessible now. I can't imagine a scenario that where 45 MP FX is not sufficient, and digital medium is not suitable. I get that people invest in systems but 45 MP is near the top of all FX resolutions (and 50 is still out there in Canon), and for something so specialized that it isn't enough, the medium gear is out there.


----------



## Franklyok (Jan 30, 2020)

Where are 5d mark5, double mount, ef + rf camera rumors, that tony n. has been talking about.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 30, 2020)

.jan said:


> That's why the EOS R had full frame 6K instead of the cropped 4K the 5DIV already offered I guess? I mean after all it's a newer processor in the R, right?



And? 

I didn't said the same sensor will magically double it's readout rate with a new processor.
What i said is that if you have a system which can already do 20fps at 33MP, its no
reason not offering 8K 30p in a future generation.

Fast readout is a combination of the sensor and processor. You need to upgrade both.
The R obviously has a very similar sensor with the 5D.


----------



## sanj (Jan 30, 2020)

How sweet.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 30, 2020)

The R5 rumor is called 'true' by Canon - great news! I do wish they mentioned anything about their 80-ish MP body as I'd be interested in it vs the R5. But I currently have a 20MP camera so that I'll be extremely happy with 45MP. I'll buy it (or the future 80-ish MP one) for sure now and my first lens will probably be the RF 70-200 f2.8.

Regarding price, while they will be better than the A7R4 in very many ways, Sony will hype their 62 MP sensor since the R6 has 45MP. Sony also has a gazillion lenses vs less for Canon. I think that Canon wants to really take over market share quickly to get their class-leading (& expensive) lenses sold and will be willing to have a much lower price than they'd normally choose. So I think they will sell it for $3500 to go head-to-head with the A7R4. Going higher risks people not getting it because they want more pixels and more lens choices, going lower risks Sony dropping their price a little and causing pressure for all to lower prices in a price war. Going right at $3500 will make a lot of sales and Sony will probably leave their $3500 price alone which is good for both companies.

If they shocked everyone at $3000 they'd really take a fast chunk of market share to get their lenses selling briskly.

Conversely, they might view the R5 competing with the A92 (at $4500) and thus come out with a price maybe as low as $4000 to undercut it quickly. That would leave room for the future 80 ish MP version with less 'speed' to undercut the A7R4 at maybe as low as $3000.

I guess we'll find out how badly they want to take market share away from Sony (who will give them quite a fight).


----------



## melgross (Jan 30, 2020)

The sales drop, and the prediction for another big drop is scary. This looks to be the future. At what point will it no longer be profitable to design and sell camera equipment? That day could arrive. Canon, and others are dropping cheaper cameras for the more profitable expensive models. I know canon just came out with a cheaper R body, but it’s still a lot more expensive than their cheapest DSLR.

Nikon has already put the new D780 on an effective sale by giving an additional $300 off until the end of March When you bring in any working body, from any manufacturer. It could be 40 years old. That’s additional to other sales pricing.

this industry is far from healthy.


----------



## DBounce (Jan 30, 2020)

I’ll be curious to learn of any improvements to dynamic range. This is an area where Canon has lagged behind Sony for the part few years.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Jan 30, 2020)

With this new processing power I wonder if they will drop the 30 minute limit on videos?


----------



## Dragon (Jan 30, 2020)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> What happened to the high mexga pixel EOS R? After all that rumor circulations, it's now just, gone?





TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.


"Horizon" can be a quarter of a mile or 100 miles depending on where you are standing. The 75-80MP camera will come, but it needs a few more really top notch R lenses. There are not many EF lenses that will support that kind of resolution (Having both a 5DSR and a 90D, I can assure you of that). Besides, 45MP IS high resolution compared to anything but a 5DSR or an A7RIV.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> honestly, 45MP is not enough for what you want? I'm sorry to hear that you think its not enough. I'm sure they wil have a 60-80mp camera this year as well, the majority want a 5D replacement, after that the higher mp slower fps one should come. I know they've been working on high mp sensors.



This new camera being 45MP kinda worries me. I bought a new MacBook Pro last year and it's plenty fast. But this new camera will have much larger files. Computer processing power is another by-product of this new camera. And for those wanting more than 45MP, I'd like to see what they're photographing. They must be printing billboards at 300dpi. Yikes.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> This new camera being 45MP kinda worries me. I bought a new MacBook Pro last year and it's plenty fast. But this new camera will have much larger files. Computer processing power is another by-product of this new camera.



I have a 2013 iMac that handles 42MP Sony A7RIII files perfectly well so think we are WAY off the limits of any computer certainly release in the last five years.



Tony Bennett said:


> And for those wanting more than 45MP, I'd like to see what they're photographing. They must be printing billboards at 300dpi. Yikes.



Not directed at you in particular but a general observation, why does everyone who doesn't have a requirement for more resolutiion question the intentions of everyone who does like we're stupid? I don't question someone wanting 8K when 75% of all content is watched in HD on a tiny phone or tablet screen. Or the spec trend that a camera must have above 10 FPS before its usuable when people have managed for years with 5 FPS?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2020)

melgross said:


> The sales drop, and the prediction for another big drop is scary. This looks to be the future. At what point will it no longer be profitable to design and sell camera equipment? That day could arrive. Canon, and others are dropping cheaper cameras for the more profitable expensive models. I know canon just came out with a cheaper R body, but it’s still a lot more expensive than their cheapest DSLR.
> 
> Nikon has already put the new D780 on an effective sale by giving an additional $300 off until the end of March When you bring in any working body, from any manufacturer. It could be 40 years old. That’s additional to other sales pricing.
> 
> this industry is far from healthy.



The sky isn't falling. Instead, the the market is returning to historical levels. The major difference is that instead of Instamatics, people are using their cell phones. Camera sales are down from the past decade when the rapid adoption of digital sent the market through the roof, but I strongly suspect Canon and Nikon with about a century of experience in the market fully understood that the boom was temporary. 

Like bank robbers, they are now going where the money is, which is upper income, generally older, users. They are also aiming at new markets in Asia with rising disposable income. It's true they haven't unlocked the secret to younger consumers and that will become a problem over time as people like me are only one or two camera generations away from exiting the market. 

Canon's emphasis on video may be one path to younger buyers. While iPhones can substitute for point and shoot cameras, they really don't do video as well as Apple would like you to believe. For folks like me, who aren't big users of the video features, these new R models may not be as appealing as they are to others, but the video-centric features are apparently essential to expanding the market.

So, I wouldn't say it's all doom and gloom. Things are changing and Canon and Nikon are working to adapt to those changes.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> ...why does everyone who doesn't have a requirement for more resolutiion question the intentions of everyone who does like we're stupid? I don't question someone wanting 8K when 75% of all content is watched in HD on a tiny phone or tablet screen. Or the spec trend that a camera must have above 10 FPS before its usuable when people have managed for years with 5 FPS?



Good point. There was a discussion a while back with another contributor who wanted high resolution. People ripped into him/her but he had a specific project and vision in mind that required more resolution. Your comment is a good reminder that we need to step outside our own box and not assume that people who want something different from what we want are stupid. 

I don't want any of the video features that people are salivating over, but that doesn't mean they can't have them.


----------



## DaveGrice (Jan 30, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> With this new processing power I wonder if they will drop the 30 minute limit on videos?



The 30 minute limitation has never been a technical limitation. It's to do with avoiding taxes on products in certain regions that are considered "video" cameras. It seems that at 30 mins, any camera automagically becomes a video camera.


----------



## victorshikhman (Jan 30, 2020)

DaveGrice said:


> The 30 minute limitation has never been a technical limitation. It's to do with avoiding taxes on products in certain regions that are considered "video" cameras. It seems that at 30 mins, any camera automagically becomes a video camera.



True story. In the EU, any device that shoots video over 30 mins is considered a video camera, and subject to a roughly between 5-14% additional tax. This doesn't explain why cameras sold outside the EU can't receive a firmware update to eliminate this limitation.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 30, 2020)

I am still amazed that they really plan to introduce 8k video! First, I couldn't believe it but it looks seriously that they will do it. Given the small bodys of such cameras their engineers must have found a smart way to cool the sensors extremely effectively. Or the camera allows only for short video takes in the 8k mode - but that's not Canon like. Respect, they really try to regain leadership, but this time against the Goliath Sony, not against Nikon like so many decades in the past.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 30, 2020)

DaveGrice said:


> The 30 minute limitation has never been a technical limitation. It's to do with avoiding taxes on products in certain regions that are considered "video" cameras. It seems that at 30 mins, any camera automagically becomes a video camera.


I agree. A limitation to avoid sensor overheating or other technical problems would be much shorter, like the 5 minutes for HD takes in the Nikon D90 ten years ago. 30 min is already a lot, in fact only very very few art house movies or art films ever had such long takes.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 30, 2020)

I look forward to see first reviews & sample images about the low light performance of the 20 MP R6. Could be the right camera for me, I seldom would need 45 MP. Looks like the R6 could be Canon's A7S...


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> I have a feeling the new R5 will be higher-priced then previous releases. I'm thinking this camera with anything near these specs will be $3999-$4500. Most of us will buy it at either of those prices. Of course I'd love for it to be cheaper but I have my doubts.


Don't give Canon any idea about people willing to pay such high prices. I've seen that happen to high end speaker parts (Martin Logan replacement speaker panels at about $3000!!)


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 30, 2020)

I wouldn't pay more than $2500!!


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 30, 2020)




----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 30, 2020)

Sounds like Canon really decided to raise from their laurels and DO something, before they lose too much shares of the camera market to Sony. Good to know for all who have invested a lot in Canon gear.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> I wouldn't pay more than $2500!!


Canadian Dollars?


----------



## jvillain (Jan 30, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Canadian Dollars?


The R is $4K in Canada so I am expecting the R5 to be in the $6k - $8k range. Canon HATES Canada. We never ever get the deals the rest of the world does.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> This new camera being 45MP kinda worries me. I bought a new MacBook Pro last year and it's plenty fast. But this new camera will have much larger files. Computer processing power is another by-product of this new camera. And for those wanting more than 45MP, I'd like to see what they're photographing. They must be printing billboards at 300dpi. Yikes.



unfortunitly the majority are never happy with any number of MP, yesterday they wanted 40, today they want 80, tomorrow they will be up in arms if its not alteast 100. There are many disadvanteages to cramming more and more photsites in the SAME AREA (35mm). Most dont care. More MP means faster shutter needed to freeze images, more noise, gigantic files, etc.

I personally am fine with 30mp, just want faster FPS, I am printing 40x30 300dpi prints that you can stick your nose against and see enormous detail. Like you mentioned, how big do these people want to print. An honeslty I bet you majority of them dont even print!!!
Most wont be able to tell you that 20MP can be printed at 40inches with extraordinary detail from a full frame sensor. I have seen huge prints from the 1dxii.

Sadly you have a generation that wants always more "k" video and always more megapixels stills. Who cares about 8k? 99% of the content on youtube is 1080p, why? cause working with 4k is a disaster of a process and space, workflow.

There is a generation that hasn't even mastered the camera they have and they think they need more to do what they dont need.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> I have a 2013 iMac that handles 42MP Sony A7RIII files perfectly well so think we are WAY off the limits of any computer certainly release in the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> Not directed at you in particular but a general observation, why does everyone who doesn't have a requirement for more resolutiion question the intentions of everyone who does like we're stupid? I don't question someone wanting 8K when 75% of all content is watched in HD on a tiny phone or tablet screen. Or the spec trend that a camera must have above 10 FPS before its usuable when people have managed for years with 5 FPS?


I see 45 MP on a APS sensor as approaching it's limits with current technology(noise, processor, buffer, etc.) Why wouldn't someone purchase a medium format camera to get more resolution? It's because they don't want to pay those prices. 

I'm more concerned with data management and hard drives. My MBP screams.

I think it's more telling those that want a 80-100MP MILC are almost always the ones that say they won't pay above $$$(whatever price) for the camera. They always want something for nothing.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> unfortunitly the majority are never happy with any number of MP, yesterday they wanted 40, today they want 80, tomorrow they will be up in arms if its not alteast 100. There are many disadvanteages to cramming more and more photsites in the SAME AREA (35mm). Most dont care. More MP means faster shutter needed to freeze images, more noise, gigantic files, etc.
> 
> I personally am fine with 30mp, just want faster FPS, I am printing 40x30 300dpi prints that you can stick your nose against and see enormous detail. Like you mentioned, how big do these people want to print. An honeslty I bet you majority of them dont even print!!!
> Most wont be able to tell you that 20MP can be printed at 40inches with extraordinary detail from a full frame sensor. I have seen huge prints from the 1dxii.
> ...


Well said. Pixel density is a real thing.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> Well said. Pixel density is a real thing.



agreed!


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Yeah...I mean digital medium is out there and accessible now. I can't imagine a scenario that where 45 MP FX is not sufficient, and digital medium is not suitable. I get that people invest in systems but 45 MP is near the top of all FX resolutions (and 50 is still out there in Canon), and for something so specialized that it isn't enough, the medium gear is out there.



exactly, if these people want more mp, there is many cameras already on the market that provide it. To expect Canon to give you what you want is a bit self-serving.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.



Actually when it comes to MILC, I’m fine with this approach. As I don’t do video, I thought like you for many years. However, with the new technology, I’m thinking there actually might be room for innovation on this front that may benefit stills shooters (such as ultra-fast frame rate captures).


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 30, 2020)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> What happened to the high mexga pixel EOS R? After all that rumor circulations, it's now just, gone?


Still 11 months left in the year.....


----------



## Adelino (Jan 30, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> With this new processing power I wonder if they will drop the 30 minute limit on videos?


Doesn't that have something to do with video camera tariffs or something like that?


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> I see 45 MP on a APS sensor as approaching it's limits with current technology(noise, processor, buffer, etc.) Why wouldn't someone purchase a medium format camera to get more resolution? It's because they don't want to pay those prices.
> 
> I'm more concerned with data management and hard drives. My MBP screams.
> 
> I think it's more telling those that want a 80-100MP MILC are almost always the ones that say they won't pay above $$$(whatever price) for the camera. They always want something for nothing.


I'm not a hipster or in any way considered young any longer (in my 40"s now). I was a Phase One customer and shot exclusivly MF but anyone who has been in that ecosystem for any length of time realises that the previous days of excellent trade in value towards the newer model has long since sailed and the MF market demographic is rental , big studio, heritage or being retired and once in the legal or medical professions.

I don't know anyone on here asking for more resolution and mentioning budget but plenty wanting all the new sensor tech in the R5 and not wanting it to cost over the usual 5D £3500 mark.

I hear what you say about storage issues with larger files but I think there are plenty of options on the market that doesn't have to cost the earth and a small price to pay in comparison to film and processing cost of the good old days.


----------



## Joules (Jan 30, 2020)

The only downside to higher resolutions is file size and reduced framerates, for a given throughput.

The noticeable effects of higher resolutions decreasing dynamic range, increased motion blur or increasing noise are only observable if you don't view the images you're comparing at the same magnification. Viewed at the same magnification, a higher resolution image will be comparable or superior to a lower resolution one.

Higher resolutions allows for more freedom in editing due to the higher amount of information and cropping ability. That's true for video and stills. Output size doesn't matter, it's the flexibility gains that are attractive about higher resolutions.

If you are the kind of guy who nails their framing on each shot, great! Admirable skills. If you have the strength and budget to carry and own big whites with loads of reach, and have the skill and patience to approach any animal as close as you wish, wow! Good for you. If you are satisfied with what you have in your camera right now, or gear like Tele converters already satisfies all your desires, that's fantastic.

But if you think everybody else is just like you in those regards, maybe you should pay more attention to people's lives. They have their own properties and you won't gain anything from projecting yourself everywhere. You also won't gain much from putting people in boxes based on their age. 

How the people who belittle those that are enthusiastic or thrilled about higher resolutions, or go as far as to call them selfish, is really weird to me.


----------



## njohnson (Jan 30, 2020)

45MP is spot on for what I need in product photography. It's a middle compromise where the photos are still quite large to crop and provide space as needed while not being so large that the files are out of control. I can't imagine many scenarios where I'd need more than this. 

I'm getting more excited but I"m sure the price will be high, especially the way the release was worded. I'd probably be in at $3000-3500 but I'd probably wait a bit longer any more than that. 

I don't use stabilization much because the camera is on a stand but I'd welcome the addition of IBIS. The video features would be a bonus to me and give me more incentive to shoot more video.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Like bank robbers, they are now going where the money is, which is upper income, generally older, users. They are also aiming at new markets in Asia with rising disposable income. It's true they haven't unlocked the secret to younger consumers and that will become a problem over time as people like me are only one or two camera generations away from exiting the market.
> 
> Canon's emphasis on video may be one path to younger buyers. While iPhones can substitute for point and shoot cameras, they really don't do video as well as Apple would like you to believe. For folks like me, who aren't big users of the video features, these new R models may not be as appealing as they are to others, but the video-centric features are apparently essential to expanding the market.


Exactly! There is/has been a paradigm shift over the last decade. While the usage of phones has been slowly and steadily replacing the lower end camera market, the upper end for users who want to do photography are where Canon and others will stay focused. 

I understand over the years we have seen in here the griping and sighing over video feature debates but that was/is a real and growing market Sony and others were afforded too much time by Canon to steal away and take a foothold in. The great news is that Canon is still the king dog in this world (marketshare) and it’s almost never too late for them to show up to the dance. They can sweep in and shank Sony if they want to and its looks like we are getting there in 2020. I mean how many Sony video people out there have said “I would rather have this feature set in Canon”. Answer? A sizable portion if not a majority.

I bought the EOS R last year because I wanted a good Canon 4K machine with the video features I needed plus a good replacement for my 5D3.

My primary work is still, Stills. But I want to do more video work because it pays well even for very simple projects.

Some folks in here have got to appreciate that while Video may not be important to them, it IS the fastest growing usage market for ILCs right now simply because those $1500-$3500 cameras CAN now do it at high performance, quality levels.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> exactly, if these people want more mp, there is many cameras already on the market that provide it. To expect Canon to give you what you want is a bit self-serving.


Please.........!

Are we talking self serving as in the continual requests for higher frame rates, uncropped 4K, flippy screen, larger buffer, two card slots, pancake lenses, smaller body, bigger body or larger rear screen etc?

Or are we talking self serving as is all the rumors said such camera would arrive in February and as you obviously have no need for more resolution its suddenly ridiculous to ask for such a thing?


----------



## Nelu (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> exactly, if these people want more mp, there is many cameras already on the market that provide it. To expect Canon to give you what you want is a bit self-serving.


It’s not just about cameras, it’s also about lenses. 
You can’t use the same lenses on FF and MF cameras.
If you have the FF lenses do you think it make sense to switch to MF and start buying new lenses all over again?


----------



## .jan (Jan 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> And?
> 
> I didn't said the same sensor will magically double it's readout rate with a new processor.
> What i said is that if you have a system which can already do 20fps at 33MP, its no
> ...


It's not just the sensor and processing power: video needs an entirely different soft- and hardware process and your implication was that if a sensor just can deliver a lot of frames quickly and a processor is potent enough all the rest will magically fall into place. Which is simply not true, and that extra effort in both hard- and software is something every user has to pay for when they buy the camera, a camera that will still be very much a stills camera when it comes to ergonomics and handling. So why pour all that energy into video features no photographer cares about?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Not directed at you in particular but a general observation, why does everyone who doesn't have a requirement for more resolutiion question the intentions of everyone who does like we're stupid? I don't question someone wanting 8K when 75% of all content is watched in HD on a tiny phone or tablet screen. Or the spec trend that a camera must have above 10 FPS before its usuable when people have managed for years with 5 FPS?



I think "stupid" is a bit strong but I look at what's out there now - not even in terms of cameras, but in terms of production photography - and no one is limited by not having more than 45 MP today. Even Arizona Highways requires less than half of that. I'm not saying there aren't applications for ultra-high resolution photography, but it's either a professional pursuit where the budget will include the gear that can produce it, or it's a "passion project" and that's too specialized for Canon to devote it's main focus to when there are major gaps in its RF line that are much more commercially necessary. You can even get around it to some extent with software and photo stitching (many do this), and lacking $$$$$ for big white lenses and avoid excessive cropping can be overcome by renting a lens for your project, or buying a used lens and reselling afterward for a similar price.

It just seems like hyperbole to act as though a lack of an RF high-megapixel body in Q1 2020 is causing severe professional hardship.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

Nelu said:


> It’s not just about cameras, it’s also about lenses.
> You can’t use the same lenses on FF and MF cameras.
> If you have the FF lenses do you think it make sense to switch to MF and start buying new lenses all over again?



of course not, but don't expect MF specifications and results if you buy a FF system.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Please.........!
> 
> Are we talking self serving as in the continual requests for higher frame fates, uncropped 4K, flippy screen, larger buffer, two card slots, pancake lenses, smaller body, bigger body or larger rear screen etc?
> 
> Or are we talking self serving as is all the rumors said such camera would arrive in February and as you obviously have no need for more resolution its suddenly ridiculous to ask for such a thing?



Im saying dont expect a camera company to fix your short comings, there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2020)

jvillain said:


> The R is $4K in Canada so I am expecting the R5 to be in the $6k - $8k range. Canon HATES Canada. We never ever get the deals the rest of the world does.


And yet a Canadian dealer consistently offers the best prices through CPW.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Im saying dont expect a camera company to fix your short comings, there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it.


My short comings, I don’t understand.

I know the high res body probably will come at some point and the R5 looks brilliant however, I just don’t appreciate the demissive nature of some peoples responses to those who wanted the much rumoured high resolution body? And your answer like many others is to go buy another camera from an different manufacturer as we’re selfish?

Sound more like “Oh brilliant, Canon unexpectedly released a swerve ball camera that totally satisfies my needs, now stuff the rest of you as I’m happy.”


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Im saying dont expect a camera company to fix your short comings, there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it.


"_...there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it._" - who the heck wants to go back and forth every couple of years to a different brand, each time selling all their lenses and then again buying new ones? Not everyone is rich (BTW, congratulations on your fortunes).


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> "_...there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it._" - who the heck wants to go back and forth every couple of years to a different brand, each time selling all their lenses and then again buying new ones? Not everyone is rich (BTW, congratulations on your fortunes).



Why would you have to "switch back and forth every couple of years"? The people complaining are indicating they have a specific need that is not met by this new camera or the Canon line in general. If they buy something that DOES meet that need today, why would they need something different in a couple of years?


----------



## mpmark (Jan 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> "_...there are plenty other systems out there that have specs which many are requesting, go to that if you dont like it._" - who the heck wants to go back and forth every couple of years to a different brand, each time selling all their lenses and then again buying new ones? Not everyone is rich (BTW, congratulations on your fortunes).



Im just tired of entitled people coming here telling the rest of us what canon should do for them, I"ve said it before, dont like it, there is plenty of other systems out there. I'm done responding, thank you


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 30, 2020)

If a person legitimately wants more MPs -and understands just how much resolution they are likely to actually get from a high resolution camera based on their lenses, experience, etc., then we should all be accepting. But anyone who has been on forums for a while knows that many commenting don't understand much about cameras and lenses and basically just want higher numbers because...well, because Sony has higher numbers. Of course, each user has different wants and needs, but I think pro photographers would be hard pressed to find situations where 45 MPs is inadequate.

In regards to resolution, I recently bought an old EF 100-300mm L lens. Yes, an old lens, but quite sharp. I was using it on my EOS R in crop mode and the pics looked quite sharp, but with all the low prices around the holidays, I picked up an M5 figuring I would benefit from the 24 MPs (compared to the 11.6 MPs of the R in crop) and saw no real difference in resolution. A few pics had slightly more with each camera - most were pretty much identical. Shots were taken at 1/500th of a sec, hand held, and the most important factor seemed to be how still I could hold the camera, not how many MPs the camera had. I was surprised, but perhaps I shouldn't have been. I recall when the Sony A7R went from 24 to 36 MPs - or something similar - and reviewers commented that without a tripod, they saw no resolution increase. Not saying my results were scientific or typical. I did have an older lens, no IBIS, no tripod. But it does make me wonder how many of those clammering for more MPs would actually see any increase in real life shooting.


----------



## Daner (Jan 30, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> True story. In the EU, any device that shoots video over 30 mins is considered a video camera, and subject to a roughly between 5-14% additional tax. This doesn't explain why cameras sold outside the EU can't receive a firmware update to eliminate this limitation.



My wife bought a Panasonic compact camera while on vacation in New Zealand several years ago. When she returned home to Sweden, I was happy to find out that it did not have the 30-minute limit that the same model had in the EU.

I agree that the limitation should be made removable via firmware.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 30, 2020)

TedYork said:


> I made a business decision based on the hope of a high megapixel R on the horizon. Now I'm beginning to fear that Canon is turning their still cameras into video production cameras. While I do shoot video I'm not interested in 8k, what I want is a good high resolution still camera. My hopes are this is a bad rumor.



Well, and this is just me....I'd not make a long term business decision on rumors....

But aside from that, just be patient, I do believe Canon will put out a higher MP camera, but likely they are putting out what will likely sell the most and I'm of the thought and it appears they might be too, that a 5Dx type replacement in R format will likely sell the most when it hits the market, which will also drive more R lens buys, etc.

I'm guessing after that, the higher MP camera will come out and the more niche ones after that......

It seems to make business sense to me if this, in fact, is the way they are approaching their new mirrorless FF line releases.

Just my $0.02,

C


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 30, 2020)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> No word of eye/facial or pet recognition technology improvements in any of these yet. Also, if this had the 'Smart Controller' found on the 1DX3 this would be a slam dunk.



I refuse to get a pet until Canon releases pet recognition technology. 

Seriously, how about birds-eye recognition?


----------



## cayenne (Jan 30, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> With this new processing power I wonder if they will drop the 30 minute limit on videos?




As I understand it...the 30 min limit wasn't a hardware related limitation at all, but was due to some European countries taxing the camera different if it recorded video over 30 minutes....

They had the artificial 30 min limit to make sure these taxing countries didn't tax it as a video camera which apparently was higher tax than a stills camera.

At least, that's how I was led to understand it when I was asking questions about it prior to my 5D3 purchase back in the day....


HTH,

cayenne


----------



## flip314 (Jan 30, 2020)

ITT: 50% of people argue 45MPix isn't enough, and 50% of people argue 45MPix is too many. Clearly Canon is ******* as nobody will be happy with this product!


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 30, 2020)

jvillain said:


> The R is $4K in Canada so I am expecting the R5 to be in the $6k - $8k range. Canon HATES Canada. We never ever get the deals the rest of the world does.



Woah.. that's a very high price, indeed!! 

Here in Australia the current price for the EOS R (from reputable retailers, with local warranty, i.e. not grey market) is AUD$2500, which equals about CAD$2200.

Australia in general doesn't receive quite the same specials / discounts / super deals that the US or parts of Asia do... but wow, I feel for you in Canada if the EOS R price is $4k! (no 4k pun intended).... 

I am very much looking forward to the EOS R5... if the specs so far are true, and it has an EVF that meets my needs, and AF tracking at least on par with what the M6mkii is showing, well THAT is a camera that hugely interests me, and one I could see myself purchasing.

It's an exciting time to be a photographer (and/or videographer). 

Regards

PJ


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Im just tired of entitled people coming here telling the rest of us what canon should do for them, I"ve said it before, dont like it, there is plenty of other systems out there. I'm done responding, thank you





Czardoom said:


> If a person legitimately wants more MPs -and understands just how much resolution they are likely to actually get from a high resolution camera based on their lenses, experience, etc., then we should all be accepting. But anyone who has been on forums for a while knows that many commenting don't understand much about cameras and lenses and basically just want higher numbers because...well, because Sony has higher numbers. Of course, each user has different wants and needs, but I think pro photographers would be hard pressed to find situations where 45 MPs is inadequate.
> 
> In regards to resolution, I recently bought an old EF 100-300mm L lens. Yes, an old lens, but quite sharp. I was using it on my EOS R in crop mode and the pics looked quite sharp, but with all the low prices around the holidays, I picked up an M5 figuring I would benefit from the 24 MPs (compared to the 11.6 MPs of the R in crop) and saw no real difference in resolution. A few pics had slightly more with each camera - most were pretty much identical. Shots were taken at 1/500th of a sec, hand held, and the most important factor seemed to be how still I could hold the camera, not how many MPs the camera had. I was surprised, but perhaps I shouldn't have been. I recall when the Sony A7R went from 24 to 36 MPs - or something similar - and reviewers commented that without a tripod, they saw no resolution increase. Not saying my results were scientific or typical. I did have an older lens, no IBIS, no tripod. But it does make me wonder how many of those clammering for more MPs would actually see any increase in real life shooting.


Two swathing comments again pretty much alienating a good number of dedicated Canon users and demeaning their dissatisfaction into being spoiled rich folk, Sony trolls or incapable of using a camera properly. 

Have you pair not been reading this forum for the last 6 months or so regarding the EOS RS?


----------



## jazzytune (Jan 30, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> I think the OP's point is valid.
> 
> Invest in the R system on the premise more resolution is coming to then find out its a video camera that also takes stills.


45


Gazwas said:


> Please.........!
> 
> Are we talking self serving as in the continual requests for higher frame rates, uncropped 4K, flippy screen, larger buffer, two card slots, pancake lenses, smaller body, bigger body or larger rear screen etc?
> 
> Or are we talking self serving as is all the rumors said such camera would arrive in February and as you obviously have no need for more resolution its suddenly ridiculous to ask for such a thing?


That's what this site is about! Rumors... until they eventually becomes a fact or they are found untrue or the release date is much later than expected! Therefore, you're disappointed because you don't get your high-res sensor/camera body now, but it doesn't mean that's it's not in the pipeline. Canon makes choices because they need to sell camera bodies and catch up with the mirrorless competition. I understand and respect the needs that certain photographers have for 75+ mp sensors. However, the reality is that the vast majority of photographers will prefer a 45 mp camera with a higher frame rate than a high mp camera with lower frame rate and a buffer that fills up quickly because of the huge size of the raw files. I don't know where to find the numbers, but I'm sure Canon has sold much more 5D Mark III and mark IV than 5DS and 5DSR.


----------



## melgross (Jan 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> The sky isn't falling. Instead, the the market is returning to historical levels. The major difference is that instead of Instamatics, people are using their cell phones. Camera sales are down from the past decade when the rapid adoption of digital sent the market through the roof, but I strongly suspect Canon and Nikon with about a century of experience in the market fully understood that the boom was temporary.
> 
> Like bank robbers, they are now going where the money is, which is upper income, generally older, users. They are also aiming at new markets in Asia with rising disposable income. It's true they haven't unlocked the secret to younger consumers and that will become a problem over time as people like me are only one or two camera generations away from exiting the market.
> 
> ...


What historical level? I remember back in the late 1960’s, when I was in my late teens, I went to the Photo show here in NYC, and asked Canon how many FTs they sold in a year. The told me about 100,000. Is that the historic level you mean? Because if it is, then they’re finished.


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 30, 2020)

jazzytune said:


> 45
> 
> That's what this site is about! Rumors... until they eventually becomes a fact or they are found untrue or the release date is much later than expected! Therefore, you're disappointed because you don't get your high-res sensor/camera body now, but it doesn't mean that's it's not in the pipeline. Canon makes choices because they need to sell camera bodies and catch up with the mirrorless competition. I understand and respect the needs that certain photographers have for 75+ mp sensors. However, the reality is that the vast majority of photographers will prefer a 45 mp camera with a higher frame rate than a high mp camera with lower frame rate and a buffer that fills up quickly because of the huge size of the raw files. I don't know where to find the numbers, but I'm sure Canon has sold much more 5D Mark III and mark IV than 5DS and 5DSR.


Completely agree and understand the business decision from Canon re sales number. Still doesn’t diminish the high res wanters disappointment. 

I just get the feeling the RS has become the R5 for the video features (business decisions again) and the RS will possibly never see the light of day. We’ll probably see a sports camera next now.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 30, 2020)

Ouch. Those numbers definitely add some context to the early spec release on the the Cams. Sound like the old bear is finally waking up. Should be a fun year in Canonland


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2020)

melgross said:


> What historical level? I remember back in the late 1960’s, when I was in my late teens, I went to the Photo show here in NYC, and asked Canon how many FTs they sold in a year. The told me about 100,000. Is that the historic level you mean? Because if it is, then they’re finished.


What's your point? I'm talking general trends and the ability of Canon and Nikon to weather the ups and downs of the market and plan accordingly. An anecdote about what some random Canon rep told some random nosy teenager in the 60s is hardly relevant.


----------



## beachcolonist (Jan 31, 2020)

What % of FF camera body buyers care about video? 5%? Canon should put out a super PHOTOGRAPHY camera. Parents chasing kids and cats can do with whatever for video.


----------



## Woody (Jan 31, 2020)

From page 14 of their slides here: https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2019e-note.pdf
Canon captured a market share of 47% for DILC. Pretty impressive.

On a personal note, I hope Canon will release a few lightweight and cheap RF lenses... The 24-120 lens doesn't appear to be small...


----------



## DBounce (Jan 31, 2020)

beachcolonist said:


> What % of FF camera body buyers care about video? 5%? Canon should put out a super PHOTOGRAPHY camera. Parents chasing kids and cats can do with whatever for video.



Plenty do. Why do you think all the cameras manufacturers are including video features in these bodies?


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 31, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Im just tired of entitled people coming here telling the rest of us what canon should do for them, I"ve said it before, dont like it, there is plenty of other systems out there. I'm done responding, thank you


Good, we don't need you telling us to jump ship to a different camera brand every time a different camera company comes out with new innovative features X, y or z. How is a manufacturing company suppose to keep up with supply and demand if we don't tell them what we need/want. You're telling me to leave Canon for company A, then a year from now company B comes out with an innovative feature that I could benefit from and I wait 2 years and still company A doesn't come out with the feature. So you tell me to jump to company B and buy all their lenses and sell all the company A lenses I already own. This could happen every 2 years. Now you get it????


----------



## canonnews (Jan 31, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Like we said on our article, this is pretty much Canon screaming from the rooftops.

They simply do NOT tell future plans in their financials like this, they also don't make a statement that they want to be #1 in mirrorless.

It means we're in for some exciting times. For Canon to make bold statements like this.. is pretty surprising and should worry the other vendors .. aka Sony.

I know the sony, et all fanboy narrative is that Sony woke up Canon, but everything really is a natural progression.

Liveview - > DPAF - > Mirrorless. 

this progression happened logically for full frame. Canon had to change their fabs to produce full frame sensors, they weren't going to release full frame mirrorless until that was done.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jan 31, 2020)

As someone who owns Canon, Fuji, Sony and Leica mirrorless cameras, I'm just enjoying the ride and excited to see what Canon can bring us.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 31, 2020)

mpmark said:


> unfortunitly the majority are never happy with any number of MP, yesterday they wanted 40, today they want 80, tomorrow they will be up in arms if its not alteast 100. There are many disadvanteages to cramming more and more photsites in the SAME AREA (35mm). Most dont care. More MP means faster shutter needed to freeze images, more noise, gigantic files, etc.
> 
> I personally am fine with 30mp, just want faster FPS, I am printing 40x30 300dpi prints that you can stick your nose against and see enormous detail. Like you mentioned, how big do these people want to print. An honeslty I bet you majority of them dont even print!!!
> Most wont be able to tell you that 20MP can be printed at 40inches with extraordinary detail from a full frame sensor. I have seen huge prints from the 1dxii.
> ...



Some of us use the extra resolution for ease of post processing. I get paid good money to manipulate files at the pixel level. Having extra detail beyond what the end result will be seen at is worth a lot to me. If I can work at 100% and only have to deliver at 25% resolution, I can work easier, faster, and smarter. I know that’s a fringe case scenario. But, it’s legitimate.

And, for 4/8k video. You might be shocked to learn that a lot of what you think is panning in the video you watch, isn’t. It’s a moving crop, from one side of an 8/6/5./4/2k capture, to the other side.

Use cases for extra resolution do exist beyond what most people consider. And those use cases will become everyday uses, soon enough.


----------



## cycomachead (Jan 31, 2020)

Hell yes, just hell yes!


----------



## Gazwas (Jan 31, 2020)

beachcolonist said:


> What % of FF camera body buyers care about video? 5%? Canon should put out a super PHOTOGRAPHY camera. Parents chasing kids and cats can do with whatever for video.


The % of people who buy FF cameras IS the problem - not enough of them. 

The next generation of photographers will 100% demand good video features and I imagine Canon is aiming for them more than the old dinosaurs in here.


----------



## Go Wild (Jan 31, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Good point. There was a discussion a while back with another contributor who wanted high resolution. People ripped into him/her but he had a specific project and vision in mind that required more resolution. Your comment is a good reminder that we need to step outside our own box and not assume that people who want something different from what we want are stupid.
> 
> I don't want any of the video features that people are salivating over, but that doesn't mean they can't have them.



Good points!
Regarding resolution, it´s all about what you need, not about what others need! It´s wrong to criticize someone because they want something in a camera. We all want different things. If I need higher resolutions then of course I´m going to ask for more MP. If I don´t need it of course I will say that 20mp will be enough.
Being a 42mp user for 3 years now, I would say that for most of the photography purposes, this is more than enough. For Weddings, landscape, wildlife, streetphoto, etc...So this is a sweet spot for sensor resolution. Of course, if you make gigantic prints, or if you are in the comercial business/publicity you may want a bit more.

Having more MP means that you have to have extra carefull in shutterspeeds otherwise every tiny movement is noticeable. In disk space of course files are also bigger and consume more space, but not too much more.

In my point of view, the 60mp of the Sony A7 RIV is too much. But if you have it you can use it in your favour. In wildlife in can mean a bigger crop without compromising quality. It means a bit more resolution in sharpness but not too much.

For me, 45MP of the new Canon is a great sweet spot! 45MP can make almost everyone happy, i can understand some guys that will going to be angry, cause they want those 75MP, but 75MP is such a large number and those who need that are quite few...So i understand totally Canon on this one. It doesn´t mean that a 75MP camera is not going to happen!

Yes...the video thing is also about that. Who doesn´t need it also don´t need to shout in a negative way. It´s not the video features that make a camera much more expensive, so why not having both worlds? Me....as a hybrid shooter, i shoot photo and video, this is heaven! This means i can use cameras for both works!

So...it´s great to have it! Leave it on!  Even if you don´t use it!

I am so happy that Canon is finally not only up to the game, but it will make a big splash!

If these new cameras don´t fit your needs, well, just wait for the right one for you and don´t criticize...Those new cameras that are coming, are huge!!


----------



## seasonascent (Jan 31, 2020)

beachcolonist said:


> What % of FF camera body buyers care about video? 5%? Canon should put out a super PHOTOGRAPHY camera. Parents chasing kids and cats can do with whatever for video.


Sharing your opinion on what you'd like in a camera is fine, but where do you get these random figures from other than your own bias? Plenty shoot video on FF.


----------



## Joules (Jan 31, 2020)

beachcolonist said:


> Canon should put out a super PHOTOGRAPHY camera.


There is nothing you're giving up on the stills side to get video. LiveView, and now the EVF, require fast and continuous sensor readout and an imaging pipeline that is up to that anyway. Compressing the files and writing them to the card requires additional hardware, yes. But if the cost added by that would be so significant that it wouldn't be offset by the additional demand caused by the video feature, why do you think literally every mainstream camera has a video feature? Even the very entry level ones, where price is a major factor in purchasing decisions?


----------



## Diltiazem (Jan 31, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> Where are 5d mark5, double mount, ef + rf camera rumors, that tony n. has been talking about.


Ask Tony.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 31, 2020)

Diltiazem said:


> Ask Tony.


no, ask Harry


----------



## mpmark (Jan 31, 2020)

SereneSpeed said:


> Some of us use the extra resolution for ease of post processing. I get paid good money to manipulate files at the pixel level. Having extra detail beyond what the end result will be seen at is worth a lot to me. If I can work at 100% and only have to deliver at 25% resolution, I can work easier, faster, and smarter. I know that’s a fringe case scenario. But, it’s legitimate.
> 
> And, for 4/8k video. You might be shocked to learn that a lot of what you think is panning in the video you watch, isn’t. It’s a moving crop, from one side of an 8/6/5./4/2k capture, to the other side.
> 
> Use cases for extra resolution do exist beyond what most people consider. And those use cases will become everyday uses, soon enough.



I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 31, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
> Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.


Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?

I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 31, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?
> 
> I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....



I agree with you. This is actually an old issue that's been discussed for ages.

It's really only an issue if you're viewing things at 1:1. If you magnify an image to 1:1 with a minimum shutter speed for a lower resolution sensor, you'll see some motion blur. That's fine for people who aren't pixel peepers, but to take advantage of the higher megapixels, you'd need to increase the shutter speed. In low light, that results in more noise.

This phenomenon is why newer phone sensors like the 48 megapixel Sony sensor use quad bayering. They can produce a sharp image in the day, but it changes to quad bayering(using 4 pixels for a single pixel before going into the normal debayer process) for lowlight to produce only 12 megapixels. The new 108 megapixel Samsung sensor will actually debayer down to 12 megapixels, this one is an extreme example, but I'm excited to see the results.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 31, 2020)

flip314 said:


> ITT: 50% of people argue 45MPix isn't enough, and 50% of people argue 45MPix is too many. Clearly Canon is ******* as nobody will be happy with this product!


In that case, I reckon what they should do is bring out two models - one higher and one lower!


----------



## Juangrande (Jan 31, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am still amazed that they really plan to introduce 8k video! First, I couldn't believe it but it looks seriously that they will do it. Given the small bodys of such cameras their engineers must have found a smart way to cool the sensors extremely effectively. Or the camera allows only for short video takes in the 8k mode - but that's not Canon like. Respect, they really try to regain leadership, but this time against the Goliath Sony, not against Nikon like so many decades in the past.


I heard the new bodies will made from unobtainium and will incorporate improbability drives.


----------



## Juangrande (Jan 31, 2020)

Nelu said:


> It’s not just about cameras, it’s also about lenses.
> You can’t use the same lenses on FF and MF cameras.
> If you have the FF lenses do you think it make sense to switch to MF and start buying new lenses all over again?


Not to mention it’s about having a complete ecosystem. Many commercial photographers need different bodies for different purposes and are likely to have 3 or more different purpose camera bodies.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Jan 31, 2020)

I really disagree
This isn’t meant to forum of canon yes men
canon slipped recently and only market share losses and negative customer feedback has lead to change 



mpmark said:


> Im just tired of entitled people coming here telling the rest of us what canon should do for them, I"ve said it before, dont like it, there is plenty of other systems out there. I'm done responding, thank you


----------



## NiktoCan (Jan 31, 2020)

I definitely think this gives more credibility to the rumors of the R5. I am a Nikon mirrorless user that can wait to switch to Canon - if most of these rumors are true!


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 31, 2020)

DBounce said:


> Plenty do. Why do you think all the cameras manufacturers are including video features in these bodies?


It's probably best to leave beach guy alone... those conversations aren't going anywhere...


----------



## Mechanical_EYE (Jan 31, 2020)

I was planning to buy a new camera this year... just didn't know which, now leaning heavily towards the R5 along with a few of those impressive-looking RF lenses.


----------



## DBounce (Jan 31, 2020)

I owned the 1DXMK2 but sold it after acquiring the EOS R. While I did hang onto my EF glass, I also bought the RF trinity. The new RF glass is epic. Great glass. It’s been in need of a worthy body. That R5 looks like it could be the one. I am absolutely interested. I may pass the EOS R with 24-105 f4 on to my girl. I don’t use that lens after getting the trinity.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 31, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?
> 
> I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....



Good question, less pixels means larger pixels, larger pixels gather more light then smaller pixels, which equates to needing less exposure to capture the same frame with the same light gathering lens.

If you truely are interested in learning that resolkution is NOT EVERYTHING then read this. If youre looking to get to the point directly then skip to "


SecureGSM said:


> Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?
> 
> I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....



Movement transitions across pixel to pixel faster with smaller/more dense pixel arrangement vs larger & less dense arrangement. Thus a faster shutter speed is needed to stop that transition which results in blur.

take a cheetah moving across your frame, in essence its moving across your sensor, less pixes eg: one part of the cheetah during the exposure will move across 3-4 pixels lets say, but if you take the same shutter speed, same scene, same movement but more dense pixels in the same are you now have that movement across lets say 6-7 pixels because of the density of the higher resolution, which translates to higher blur. Yes if you normalize the images it probably wont make a difference but whats the point of higher resolution then in the first place.

You say yeah, if you ahve 1/2000 who cares right? the point is a slower shutter speed can be used with a less dense sensor to stop the same action. This is mainly why a 1dxii and iii is only 20mp


----------



## Mechanical_EYE (Jan 31, 2020)

DBounce said:


> I owned the 1DXMK2 but sold it after acquiring the EOS R. While I did hang onto my EF glass, I also bought the RF trinity. The new RF glass is epic. Great glass. It’s been in need of a worthy body. That R5 looks like it could be the one. I am absolutely interested. I may pass the EOS R with 24-105 f4 on to my girl. I don’t use that lens after getting the trinity.




Yeah, after everything I've read/heard/seen about the RF glass, the trinity is what I'm after.


----------



## beachcolonist (Jan 31, 2020)

seasonascent said:


> Sharing your opinion on what you'd like in a camera is fine, but where do you get these random figures from other than your own bias? Plenty shoot video on FF.


Haha, and what % is, "plenty"? I got my figure from conjecture, as is evident in the post posed as a question. What does plenty mean? Is that an excited variation on "some?"


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 31, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
> Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.




My statement wasn’t a blanket statement. At some point there will be diminishing returns. Sure. But, the 7Dii has much greater pixel density and that’s not stopping anyone from shooting sports or BIF. That sensor is now years old, and Canon’s latest PR release mentions new sensor tech.

I think your issues with the 1Dxii and 5Div (probably - I’m assuming) have more to do with the fact you’re trying to gain ‘reach’ with a sensor instead of lenses. Instead of needing to crop BIF images, using longer focal lengths would spread that motion across more pixels and diminish the effects of shutter speed. Motion blur at the pixel level, as a result of higher resolution, is only visible at the pixel level.

And I agree with nearly everyone in the is thread, we have more pixels than we need for printing and viewing images. 50mp easily covers entire walls with detailed prints. But, that’s only if you are using the entire sensor.

I’ve been laughing since the day I picked up my first 5D4. There’s so much latitude in those files, it’s crazy. I’m now using my fourth of that sensor tech, four years later (albeit, in a pair of eos r’s, now) and I’m still impressed. I have complete faith in Canon’s ability to create a 45mp sensor with at least the same quality. Probably better quality.

Sure, growth for the sake of growth is overkill. But for myself, and a lot of my colleagues, this is still growth for the sake of user benefit. And further, future growth will still be beneficial. Not for all, but definitely for some.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 31, 2020)

SereneSpeed said:


> My statement wasn’t a blanket statement. At some point there will be diminishing returns. Sure. But, the 7Dii has much greater pixel density and that’s not stopping anyone from shooting sports or BIF. That sensor is now years old, and Canon’s latest PR release mentions new sensor tech.
> 
> I think your issues with the 1Dxii and 5Div (probably - I’m assuming) have more to do with the fact you’re trying to gain ‘reach’ with a sensor instead of lenses. Instead of needing to crop BIF images, using longer focal lengths would spread that motion across more pixels and diminish the effects of shutter speed. Motion blur at the pixel level, as a result of higher resolution, is only visible at the pixel level.
> 
> ...



Glad you mentioned the 7Dii, prime example of pixel density issues with BIF, the 5Div although loses "reach" due to crop has much improved contrast over the 7dii using the same lens for BIF, why? Because contrast is sharpness and the contrast is better on the 5Div vs the 7Dii beacuse of pixel density.

The 1dxii has even better contrast vs the 5div of BIF using the same lens again because of pixel density. You can shoot with the 7dii, yes the focal length may seem closer but when you normalize the 5div to the same size image the 5iv image will be sharper (more contrast) at the smae settings then the 7dii because of pixel density. In the end the image is nicer.


----------



## Rivermist (Jan 31, 2020)

Woody said:


> From page 14 of their slides here: https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2019e-note.pdf
> Canon captured a market share of 47% for DILC. Pretty impressive.
> 
> On a personal note, I hope Canon will release a few lightweight and cheap RF lenses... The 24-120 lens doesn't appear to be small...


The need for more affordable and above all compact lenses is there, and I would also suggest that some of the flagship new L lenses see some serious price adjustments if Canon wants to accelerate the switching to RF and attract more adopters. Just like the R body was selling OK at its initial price but started flying off the shelves once they took $500 off the tag, lenses like the RF 70-200 2.8 or 15-35 2.8 would probably sell in larger quantities at a price between $1,500 and $1,800. Pricing such glass at over $2,500 guarantees that only professionals and really well-heeled amateurs will purchase them, precluding any gains in production efficiency through larger production batches. When you compare the very recent, high quality EF 85mm 1.4 IS at $1,500 with the RF 1.2 at $2,699, something is not right with that picture.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 1, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> The need for more affordable and above all compact lenses is there, and I would also suggest that some of the flagship new L lenses see some serious price adjustments if Canon wants to accelerate the switching to RF and attract more adopters. Just like the R body was selling OK at its initial price but started flying off the shelves once they took $500 off the tag, lenses like the RF 70-200 2.8 or 15-35 2.8 would probably sell in larger quantities at a price between $1,500 and $1,800. Pricing such glass at over $2,500 guarantees that only professionals and really well-heeled amateurs will purchase them, precluding any gains in production efficiency through larger production batches. When you compare the very recent, high quality EF 85mm 1.4 IS at $1,500 with the RF 1.2 at $2,699, something is not right with that picture.


What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 1, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.





Czardoom said:


> What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.


Thanks for the input, rest assured I am not trying to bash any brand or person (my first camera in 1970 was a Canon FTb, followed by F-1s, etc...). My point is that at this early stage of a new mount, it would help increase the customer base if the lenses were not so expensive off the bat. Like many I am taking losses selling off my EF inventory already, and of course there is for all practical purposes no second hand buy & sell or much in terms of refurbished RF. With modern design and manufacturing technologies, the new lenses should be the same price as the EF equivalents or (to accelerate uptake) somewhat cheaper. Once the R mount has a full range of bodies from RP to super-pro, and all focal lengths covered with normally-priced USM, f:4 L, f:2.8L and then some exotic primes or super-wide zooms, Canon can price as it sees fit. Case in point the EF 35mm f2.0 IS is $550 after a $50 savings while the RF 35mm f:1.8 IS is $499 without rebates.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 1, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Good question, less pixels means larger pixels, larger pixels gather more light then smaller pixels, which equates to needing less exposure to capture the same frame with the same light gathering lens.


Sorry, that's absolutely wrong. The required exposure doesn't depend on the pixel size.



SecureGSM said:


> Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?



Smaller pixels make motion blur more prominent so you may want to increase the shutter speed to reduce the blur when viewing 1:1.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 1, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Sounds like Canon really decided to raise from their laurels and DO something, before they lose too much shares of the camera market to Sony. Good to know for all who have invested a lot in Canon gear.



The takeaway from what they said seems not to be 'we're losing market share to Sony', but 'the market is contracting and we want to offset lower sales with more profitable products'. How many times must we repeat - the idea there's been an exodus of Canon users to Sony just isn't borne out by the sales figures?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 1, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> I just get the feeling the RS has become the R5 for the video features (business decisions again) and the RS will possibly never see the light of day. We’ll probably see a sports camera next now.



I wouldn't be so hasty. There's no reason at all to believe that, except pessimism. We simply don't know. But there's long been talk of a high resolution body, and we know they are producing sensors on a commercial basis with pixel densities that would give ~83MP FF, so I still expect they'll bring one out, for bragging rights if nothing else. Just because a couple more bodies have risen to the surface in the past few weeks doesn't change what we (thought we) knew before that.


----------



## NiktoCan (Feb 1, 2020)

Funny how so many Sony users are hoping the Canon R5 specs are no where near reality. Why would all of us (Nikon, Canon, Sony) not hope for increased competition. It will only push our manufacturer of choice to develop and produce better offerings? With that ridiculous logic, Sony users should be happy with 720p, as long as Sony was the only one to offer it...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 3, 2020)

NiktoCan said:


> Funny how so many Sony users are hoping the Canon R5 specs are no where near reality. Why would all of us (Nikon, Canon, Sony) not hope for increased competition. It will only push our manufacturer of choice to develop and produce better offerings? With that ridiculous logic, Sony users should be happy with 720p, as long as Sony was the only one to offer it...



Perhaps my limited time here. But I keep hearing about Sony and Sony users as if they are the market dominator, when they are in third place. Canon’s rival is Nikon, I am more interested in what they are doing and how their lenses and bodies compete. What Sony is doing just now is irrelevant.

And back on to your post, aye more completion is good but users need to remember that there is more to the camera than a few specs which one body does better than another. The tens of thousands you have invested in one system or another is a much bigger factor than if the Nikon Z7 Mark ii will have more pixels than the Canon R5. No user is seriously going to switch at the drop of a body and re buy a whole new set of lenses.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 3, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
> Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.



yes and no, I respectively think there's more to be said about this - it's not quite that black and white.

1) if you view at the same output image size between a high MP and a low MP camera the shutter speeds necessary to stop action would be the same. So for instance, if you printed at say, a page spread and viewed them, the shutter speed necessary to look as if they are stopped would be effectively the same between the two cameras. Thus for the sake of a true comparison between low and high MP cameras, there is no difference.

2) if you view the images at the same level of pixel magnification (ie: 100% magnification on both) on each you are effectively increasing the print dimensions of the higher MP camera. Thus requiring a higher shutter speed. So then you have to adjust your shutter speed accordingly. But that higher MP camera allows you to put more pixels on target for when you can use a high shutter speed and because of that you can effectively crop tighter. You don't even have that option with a low MP camera.

It really depends on how you use the tool, but in reality, you can use a high MP camera in ways that you never could a lower resolution camera - which is why alot of people are screaming about the 1DX Mark III only be 20MP.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 3, 2020)

NiktoCan said:


> Funny how so many Sony users are hoping the Canon R5 specs are no where near reality. Why would all of us (Nikon, Canon, Sony) not hope for increased competition. It will only push our manufacturer of choice to develop and produce better offerings? With that ridiculous logic, Sony users should be happy with 720p, as long as Sony was the only one to offer it...



I'm seriously waiting to see if the R5 is this camera that was leaked.

if it is - after posting all the dirty details on my website, and checking out CR - i'm grabbing a big popcorn bag and camping on dpreview because it would be epic to see the lengths in which the sony trolls will go to still find a way to say Sony's better (probably they'll point to the lenses) - but the level of imploding will be seriously epic.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 3, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Completely agree and understand the business decision from Canon re sales number. Still doesn’t diminish the high res wanters disappointment.
> 
> I just get the feeling the RS has become the R5 for the video features (business decisions again) and the RS will possibly never see the light of day. We’ll probably see a sports camera next now.


why on earth would you think that Canon would let Sony (or Nikon) hold onto the high MP crown? 3 years was the longest that any company other than Canon held that crown and you can bet Canon didn't like it much.

If this R5 beast is real and legit. Canon should be able to make around a 60-80MP full frame sensor and have it process at around 900 Megapixels per second. So, in reality, it should hit around 10 fps mechanical and electronic. Rolling shutter would probably suck, but hey. Life isn't perfect.

That said, it depends on the R5 - if it's real then Canon's really upped it's game with DIGIC in a massive way, not to mention really put the pedal to the metal when it comes to sensor speed.

IMO a high MP camera is a no brainer. Canon certainly doesn't want the A7R IV being the highest MP camera available. Heck they may not even like the GFX 100 sitting up there at 100MP.

Keep in mind that Canon has been actively developing a 120MP DSLR for around 4+ years now. They still have all the pieces of that laying around.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> why on earth would you think that Canon would let Sony (or Nikon) hold onto the high MP crown? 3 years was the longest that any company other than Canon held that crown and you can bet Canon didn't like it much.


I'm just spouting hot air but 45MP is probably considered high resolution enough for most people and video in this segment is probably more important (outside this forum) today than stills photography. I just think going forward the headline features in cameras for future generations of content creators will be video resolutions, frame rates and codecs over MP count.

For Canon to specifically talk about the importance of video in the recent financial statments points to what they hold important in the mirrorless market place and 100MP woun't necessarily sell more cameras today but 8K will.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> <snip>
> 
> IMO a high MP camera is a no brainer. Canon certainly doesn't want the A7R IV being the highest MP camera available. Heck they may not even like the GFX 100 sitting up there at 100MP.
> 
> Keep in mind that Canon has been actively developing a 120MP DSLR for around 4+ years now. They still have all the pieces of that laying around.



I wonder if Canon will ever want to dip their toes into the Medium Format area? 

the GFX100 is very interesting, but that's not only 100MP, but it's also a larger medium format sensor too....requiring different lenses and all to cover the physically larger sensor....right?

I"ve been dabbling in Medium Format 120 film photography and it is interesting for sure. I was thinking of renting the GFX 100 and even maybe the Hasselblad X1D 2 just to see what that's like....

But would be cool if Canon jumped into that arena, but I'm guessing that's a WHOLE new thread there alone...haha.

I'm anxious to see what the R5 comes out like....should be very interesting and I"d love to make my 5D3 a backup to the R5 if it proves to be true to the specs leaked.

cayenne


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> That said, it depends on the R5 - if it's real then Canon's really upped it's game with DIGIC in a massive way, not to mention really put the pedal to the metal when it comes to sensor speed.



I always wondered if when they upgraded their sensor fabrication process a few years ago now, if they had done the same with their CPUs. Similar to what AMD did to leapfrog intel and capture the growing Cloud Computing sector by investing heavily into the 7nm chip making process. meanwhile intel is struggling to catch up. Looks like Canon pulled this off with the Digic X, making a DX3 that always had 2 CPUs (plus a third for AF). It looks like after years of planning and VERY costly production upgrades, Canon has finally assembled all the puzzle pieces it needed to tear it wide open.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 3, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I wonder if Canon will ever want to dip their toes into the Medium Format area?
> 
> the GFX100 is very interesting, but that's not only 100MP, but it's also a larger medium format sensor too....requiring different lenses and all to cover the physically larger sensor....right?
> 
> ...


I personally think MFD is even more dead in the water than DSLR's and would be a massive mistake to follow that path. I honestly don't know how Phase One stays afloat and if it wasn't for the X1D, I think we would have lost Hasselblad a few years back.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 3, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I always wondered if when they upgraded their sensor fabrication process a few years ago now, if they had done the same with their CPUs. Similar to what AMD did to leapfrog intel and capture the growing Cloud Computing sector by investing heavily into the 7nm chip making process. meanwhile intel is struggling to catch up. Looks like Canon pulled this off with the Digic X, making a DX3 that always had 2 CPUs (plus a third for AF). It looks like after years of planning and VERY costly production upgrades, Canon has finally assembled all the puzzle pieces it needed to tear it wide open.



Canon outsources DIGIC. It was in the past codeveloped with TI and manufactured at some other fab.

But they may have done away with TI.

They did go from 500nm to 300nm quietly with the 1dx mark ii.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> I personally think MFD is even more dead in the water than DSLR's and would be a massive mistake to follow that path. I honestly don't know how Phase One stays afloat and if it wasn't for the X1D, I think we would have lost Hasselblad a few years back.



MFD isn't going anywhere. Physics are still physics and Medium Formal can therefore do thing 35mm can't. Granted it is a VERY specialized tool for extremely high end portrait pros who can charge for high end work and high end cameras. Medium format will never achieve the market penetration 35mm will. But thats why they are priced so much higher because they wont ever produce in large volume.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon outsources DIGIC. It was in the past codeveloped with TI and manufactured at some other fab.
> 
> But they may have done away with TI.
> 
> They did go from 500nm to 300nm quietly with the 1dx mark ii.


 Now that you say that, I do recall the Texas Instruments thing. Would be curious to know who is doing it now. 

"DIGIC 5 was co-designed with Texas Instruments (TI) and manufactured by TI through foundry partnership in Asia using 45 nm node technology fanned out by TI.[11][12] "

That was 2011... 45nm, at least according to Wiki.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 3, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> MFD isn't going anywhere. Physics are still physics and Medium Formal can therefore do thing 35mm can't. Granted it is a VERY specialized tool for extremely high end portrait pros who can charge for high end work and high end cameras. Medium format will never achieve the market penetration 35mm will. But thats why they are priced so much higher because they wont ever produce in large volume.



Yeah, with camera sales in general going down, it MFD likely isn't going to get wide spread any time soon. Although, I do think the likes of the GFX100/50 and the X1D II are making things a BIT more reachable by common folks. A BIT...lol.

I do see the coming Hasselblad digital back, the part of the new CFV II 50C digital back coming out, as possibly being something that can introduce more wide spread (a relative term for sure) to more of the masses with disposable income:

Hasselblad V System new Products

The old 500 V system series of camera are out there by the ton, and aren't really that $$$...and it seems 120 film is having a bit of a resurgence from what I can see....and being able to pick up one of these cameras with lenses for a very reasonable price, could set you up to start shooting in an interesting square (6x6) format which is new to a lot of folks.....and then save up and get one of these backs and voila, you are in the MFD game for MUCH less than the Phase one or the Hasselblad H system beasts.

I"m actually kinda hoping that this is the case...if that new back comes out in the $5K range...with scrimping and saving, I could get one of these and really have a great companion to my Canon FF gear..plus I have that film thing I can fall back to for more variety.

I've actually been VERY surprised at the amount of content on YouTube on not just film, but MF film and cameras out there.

So, yes, while likely never to be as main stream 35mm digital, it does seem to be creeping into consciousness more and more of those really into photography.

As I understand it, in high end product commercial photography, fashion, etc...MF is highly prized and used, so perhaps it might be a part of that higher end, higher dollar market Canon might some day shoot for?

I dunno, likely wishful thinking, but interesting to discuss.

I mean, if eventually, I get a R5 and put my 5D3 back into back up mode for that, and have my 501CM where I can shoot 120 film and Digital MF there too...man, I think I'd be set as far as covering as many types of photography (and some video) as I'd want for quite some time.

While I'm at it....I'd also like a pony.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 3, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> MFD isn't going anywhere. Physics are still physics and Medium Formal can therefore do thing 35mm can't. Granted it is a VERY specialized tool for extremely high end portrait pros who can charge for high end work and high end cameras. Medium format will never achieve the market penetration 35mm will. But thats why they are priced so much higher because they wont ever produce in large volume.


I'm not so sure. For work I've shot exclusivly MFD for years but when Sony intruduced the A7R that all changed and myself like quite a few other photographers I know now shoot with FF 35mm. All my MFD kit has now gone and I've never looked back. The Sony A7RII was a game changer and I very much expect Canon to change the industy again with their new cameras and lenses going forward. Not sure if you have uses a MFD camera but focus accuracy and speed of focus is light years ahead with FF and when things like eye AF continue to evolve and resolutions climb higher I imagine event the high end guys will take notice. 

And physics has very little to do with it as while the very high end might still demand MFD, this is more a case of what is expected on set when big budgets are being spent rather than from an IQ perspective.


----------



## Matthew19 (Feb 3, 2020)

DaveGrice said:


> The 30 minute limitation has never been a technical limitation. It's to do with avoiding taxes on products in certain regions that are considered "video" cameras. It seems that at 30 mins, any camera automagically becomes a video camera.


that law was done away with a. couple of years ago.


----------



## melgross (Feb 4, 2020)

unfocused said:


> What's your point? I'm talking general trends and the ability of Canon and Nikon to weather the ups and downs of the market and plan accordingly. An anecdote about what some random Canon rep told some random nosy teenager in the 60s is hardly relevant.


Wow, aren’t you defensive.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 8, 2020)

.jan said:


> It's not just the sensor and processing power: video needs an entirely different soft- and hardware process and your implication was that if a sensor just can deliver a lot of frames quickly and a processor is potent enough all the rest will magically fall into place. Which is simply not true, and that extra effort in both hard- and software is something every user has to pay for when they buy the camera, a camera that will still be very much a stills camera when it comes to ergonomics and handling. So why pour all that energy into video features no photographer cares about?



You are right of course but how realistic would be to develop a camera only for stills? People would complain that it does not have video and sales would be low, just like for the Nikon Df. 
IF not adding video features and designing a sensor only for stills would meke the image quality would be much better, then maybe it would have a market, i don't know.


----------

