# Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 24, 2021)

> The rumors about a high-megapixel EOS R5 have been around since the release of the camera. Most of us have reported a Canon camera with an 80mp image sensor, but by the sounds of it, Canon will take the resolution much higher.
> A solid source has told me that Canon hasn’t yet internally decided on which image sensor will come in the new high-megapixel RF mount camera. This camera will replace the equally loved and hated EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R.
> Apparently, the goal now is to be north of 100mp, to provide even more separation between the EOS R5’s 45mp and the new high-megapixel sensor. The same source also mentions that it’s not simply going to be an EOS R5 body with a higher resolution sensor, but a camera geared towards landscape and studio photographers. What that means ergonomically, I’m not sure.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 24, 2021)

That would be most impressive! Hope Canon knocks it out of the park. (again)


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 24, 2021)

Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 24, 2021)

Hopefully no more AA filter for such a camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm hoping this will be a better/faster tracking camera than the R. I know the R5 is probably a much better choice if I want that, but would love to have the 100 megapixels.

I've also discovered that my Tamron 45mm is horrible in bright light. Abysmal, actually. CA is out of control and the images get muddy. In moderate light, much better. So hoping I can get back some RF glass in a year or two.


----------



## landon (Mar 24, 2021)

Told you Canon is not going to release anything new until everybody has an R5/R6 first.


----------



## Twinix (Mar 24, 2021)

bUt wIlL iT hAvE 16k ViDeO¿


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 24, 2021)

Would be pure pleasure to do panorama pictures of landscapes with this body and a supertele. Insane... Also wonder how many HDD would need to store this picture  

Now, really, I wish to see more news about this camera


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully no more AA filter for such a camera.


I used to be very anti-anti-alias filters, but the modern AA filters with the R5 and 1DX3 seem to be a significant improvement in retaining sharpness over older ones. It's probably fine if it does.


----------



## canonmike (Mar 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Fantastic. Now, bring on the rumored RF10-24mm wide angle to pair it with and I'll be one happy camper, a Canon one. Can you see me salivating over the possibilities? Bring it on Canon.......


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully no more AA filter for such a camera.



I would bet Canon will have a AA filter on this camera but most likely one that does not degrade image sharpness much


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 24, 2021)

I will take a 100mp with a good amount of salt but If Canon does introduce a camera with 100 or more MP it will closer to $5k mark is my guess


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 24, 2021)

jhpeterson said:


> That would be most impressive! Hope Canon knocks it out of the park. (again)


Impressive Canon (Sony & Nikon to follow possibly around 80 mp) and in MF terrority, no point in switching to MF from either of the 3 big FF ML as Canon's (Sony, Nikon) system and lens selection are superb.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 24, 2021)

Twinix said:


> bUt wIlL iT hAvE 16k ViDeO¿


I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2021)

This is not the sensor gap for me, I'm waiting for the more than the R6, less than the R5 camera. No, that's not the R....Still, this (sort of ) reminds me of the return to the 1D dual body setup, one for sports/journalism and one for studio/landscape. When you dis that thought, remember how I wrote 'sort of'.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 24, 2021)

It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 24, 2021)

If neither the R1 nor the R5s is going to released in 2021, which "new exciting R camera" ist coming this year? I hope it's not the R5c because I personally couldn't care less about video...

Is it possible that Canon would release two MP monsters with an identical body but different sensors? 70-80 MP and 100MP plus? I figure "no" due to saving costs, but there have also been the 5Ds and 5Dsr, so I thought there might be a chance.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 24, 2021)

landon said:


> Told you Canon is not going to release anything new until everybody has an R5/R6 first.


It's just March. Canon never releases cameras in an Olympic year early in March. Most often it's June. So you have to wait. You'll see a lot more leaks in April and May. And then in June, Bam! Same as last year, but right before the opening ceremonies. Canon always has the perfect timing. Reason every other manufacture either tries to release quickly or make a mistake and wait. Canon ruled the marketing in 2020. Heat or no heat, it was all about the R5. The entire second half of 2020. And now it's chatter all about "Active Cooling". The bar set by Canon.


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 24, 2021)

OK just thinking out loud, but with Adobe's new Super Resolution I get 122 MP (effectively) out of my 30.4 MP R. It really looks pretty wonderful, but I only see it when I zoom way in, like 200%. If I had to make a print 48" wide and stand with my nose right on top of it, sure I'll see that resolution, but who does that?

And when I look at the size-matched comparisons in DxO Mark of the 5Ds vs the 5D IV, there doesn't appear to be much gain, if any, in image quality by shooting big and scaling down.

So yeah, I'll be the first to ask if it's really useful. But please give me credit for not being a mindless knee-jerker. What is the actual practical benifit? I'm not assuming there isn't a gain, I'm seriously asking what that gain is. And if that gain is worth the giant files and possible hit to SNR.

I am aware that there is an equal and opposite knee-jerk tendency to accept that more is always better.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 24, 2021)

jam05 said:


> It's just March. Canon never releases cameras in an Olympic year early in March. Most often it's June. So you have to wait. You'll see a lot more leaks in April and May. And then in June, Bam! Same as last year, but right before the opening ceremonies. Canon always has the perfect timing. Reason every other manufacture either tries to release quickly or make a mistake and wait. Canon ruled the marketing in 2020. Heat or no heat, it was all about the R5. The entire second half of 2020. And now it's chatter all about "Active Cooling". The bar set by Canon, to beat the R5 specs outright, active cooling is needed.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> This camera will replace the equally loved and hated EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R.


Hated by reviewers. Loved by users.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm hoping this will be a better/faster tracking camera than the R. I know the R5 is probably a much better choice if I want that, but would love to have the 100 megapixels.
> 
> I've also discovered that my Tamron 45mm is horrible in bright light. Abysmal, actually. CA is out of control and the images get muddy. In moderate light, much better. So hoping I can get back some RF glass in a year or two.


If anything it should be better? 5DS/R improved the AF of the 5DIII in several dimensions including low light, accuracy and speed.


----------



## juststeve (Mar 24, 2021)

My hope is whatever sensor is chosen and for whichever group of photographers the camera is aimed Canon does not change much from the present ergonomics of the R5-6. Improvements could be made; for instance, larger more prominent function buttons. But over-all the R5-6 are pretty fine handling cameras, especially given their relatively small size.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> And when I look at the size-matched comparisons in DxO Mark of the 5Ds vs the 5D IV, there doesn't appear to be much gain, if any, in image quality by shooting big and scaling down.


Not sure what comparisions you have looked at. But there's more detail with the 5DS/R - enough that you can see it on prints where details matter. It's not always pictures have small details and maybe your shooting does not require it. That would make the R6 a perfect choice. So there's something for everyone.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

Canon said the 5DS/R was a studio and landscape camera too. But it became a favorite for many nature shooters - and I did almost exclusive action shots with it because I need the ability to crop a lot sometimes.

So would take that part with more than a grain of salt. What we can hope is that it will have the same extra-dampened shutter that Canon gave the 5DS/R and which is one of the "secret" advantages of that camera.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

100 MPIX sounds great. 120 MPIX would be perfect. Less would hardly be enough compared to the 5DS/R. Was really worried that they would settle for 75 MPIX. 

Regardless this sounds like the camera I have been hoping and holding out for since Canon announced their entry into the mirrorless market. One Preorder here Canon - thank you!


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm hoping this will be a better/faster tracking camera than the R. I know the R5 is probably a much better choice if I want that, but would love to have the 100 megapixels.
> 
> I've also discovered that my Tamron 45mm is horrible in bright light. Abysmal, actually. CA is out of control and the images get muddy. In moderate light, much better. So hoping I can get back some RF glass in a year or two.


A fast tracking camera like Sony Alpha 1 will need a much speedier processor. So likely you are looking at a 1DX-level camera in the mirrorless family. That is going to be a $5K~$10K camera.


----------



## Billybob (Mar 24, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


Okay, I'll bite. 

I don't need it and won't be buying it, but if true, I applaud Canon for going all the way to 100 rather than compromise at 80MP or similar. The resolution pretty much must be (at least) doubled to provide a perceptible benefit. 80MP is simply not a sufficiently large increase to provide significant benefits. 80MP would have duplicated the mistake Sony did with their 60MP camera. Without extreme pixel peeping I struggle--no--I don't see an improvement over images from their 42MP cameras. Thus, if Canon is going to ratchet up the pixel count, by all means break the 100MP barrier.

Of course, what lenses can resolve that resolution, who has the technique to take handheld shots at that resolution, and defraction sets in at f/2.8, and...


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2021)

Weak AA > No AA >>>>>>>>>>> Strong AA


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 24, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us.

I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance. I am very tempted to buy R5 but I plan to wait for another year or so to see if they can show us something truly amazing.

and last but not least, 45MP and 100MP doesn't have a meaningful difference unless you are a specific kind of photographers.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've also discovered that my Tamron 45mm is horrible in bright light. Abysmal, actually. CA is out of control and the images get muddy. In moderate light, much better. So hoping I can get back some RF glass in a year or two.



Strange, I haven't seen this with mine at all. There's noticeable color fringing in OOF areas but this is true of every fast lens shooting wide open. CA at the plane of focus is very well controlled. Your lens might need service.


----------



## frjmacias (Mar 24, 2021)

This camera is definitely on my list of possible preorders if true. Canon, make it happen!


----------



## Jim Corbett (Mar 24, 2021)

Which also means the end of the mech. shutter.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us...


Keep in mind that the 90D's 32mp sensor scales up to 82mp on full frame, so 100mp isn't that far out of the range.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us.



In theory pixel size should be directly related to dynamic range because of full well capacity, and lower density sensors should have a distinct advantage. In practice the 36mp D800 sensor set the bar for DR back in...2012?...and the needle has barely moved since that time. Also during that time the sensors to match or improve upon the D800 have all been high density sensors. 

We even see this with Canon's old sensor tech as the 5Ds/sR had the best dynamic range for Canon prior to Canon's newer ADC tech in the 5D mark IV, 1DX mark II, etc. The 5Ds/sR had better DR than the original 1DX and the 6D.

I'm not sure why this is. Why doesn't FWC play a larger role, and why is everyone stuck just below 15ev of total DR. But my expectation is that this new sensor will be in the 14-15 stop range like everything else.



MarinnaCole said:


> I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance.



I just can't agree with that statement. The 5Ds/sR offer fine detail and sharpness which had been limited to MFDBs prior to 2015. DR is what it is which means I might have to bracket at times when an R5/D8x0/A7r owner can make do with a single frame. But 12.4 stops is Kodak Portra territory, and is only limiting in scenes with extreme brightness range.


----------



## dolina (Mar 24, 2021)

What Is the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility? With Example


The law of diminishing marginal utility states that as consumption increases, the marginal utility derived from each additional unit declines. Learn more.




www.investopedia.com


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2021)

> "The same source also mentions that it’s not simply going to be an EOS R5 body with a higher resolution sensor, but a camera geared towards landscape and studio photographers. What that means ergonomically, I’m not sure."


This statement surprises me. I always assumed that one of the advantages of the 5DsR was that it used the same body as the 5DIII, making production more efficient and saving costs for a body that was never a big seller. This will definitely be a niche camera and so I would expect they would want to reuse as much of the R5 tooling and parts as possible.


----------



## GmanKY (Mar 24, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I will take a 100mp with a good amount of salt but If Canon does introduce a camera with 100 or more MP it will closer to $5k mark is my guess


I would agree. I have a bunch of Canon gear, but I gotta be honest. If I'm looking at this type of high-megapixel camera in that price range, I think I would lean to the Fuji GFX 100s. Sure, it would be great to be able to use my Canon lenses on a new body like this, but the medium format option in the same price range offers some good advantages.


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 24, 2021)

Fischer said:


> If anything it should be better? 5DS/R improved the AF of the 5DIII in several dimensions including low light, accuracy and speed.



mostly agree, but AF and tracking still could be improved.. I have R5 and it is very good and happy with the purchase, but there are certain situations where AF hunts, thankfully not many. The other big improvement if they can get it is global shutter, but highly unlikely in a higher megapixel camera. I'm stoked and love my R5 to bits, but Canon is really dropping the Mic lately (as in showing off it means business) and it's nice to see. I was pretty close to changing vendors before the R5/R6 came out


----------



## SteveC (Mar 24, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Okay, I'll bite.
> 
> I don't need it and won't be buying it, but if true, I applaud Canon for going all the way to 100 rather than compromise at 80MP or similar. The resolution pretty much must be (at least) doubled to provide a perceptible benefit. 80MP is simply not a sufficiently large increase to provide significant benefits. 80MP would have duplicated the mistake Sony did with their 60MP camera. Without extreme pixel peeping I struggle--no--I don't see an improvement over images from their 42MP cameras. Thus, if Canon is going to ratchet up the pixel count, by all means break the 100MP barrier.
> 
> Of course, what lenses can resolve that resolution, who has the technique to take handheld shots at that resolution, and defraction sets in at f/2.8, and...



You beat me to it!

I was going to go on half the rant, where I say I don't need this. But then pointedly leave out the stupid "conclusion" that therefore neither does anyone else.

This will be a specialty camera, for specialists. Some people really _do_ need the 100+ MP. I'm not one of them; for most of what I do 32 MP is quite enough, but I will applaud this beast nevertheless when it shows up.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 24, 2021)

Oh Baby, shake your sweet little sensor for me!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 24, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


Let me quote Porsche's former CEO: "Nobody needs a Porsche, but everybody would like to have one."
I definitely want this megapixel EOS, soon!


----------



## Twinix (Mar 24, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


I wonder what video resolution it will actually get. 8k? 12k? A little bit over 12k? Personally, I don’t care for that resolution, I don’t want it and want it.


----------



## dwarven (Mar 24, 2021)

Holy shutter shock Batman. 100MP?!


----------



## nwardrip (Mar 24, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


If you take the currently talked about 16k resolution of 15360 x 8640, and make that a 3:2 sensor, you get 15360 x 10240 = 157,286,400 = 157.2MP


----------



## nwardrip (Mar 24, 2021)

Twinix said:


> I wonder what video resolution it will actually get. 8k? 12k? A little bit over 12k?


Fuji's 102MP GFX 100 is 11,648 x 8736, but that is 4:3.

For 3:2, 12,000 x 8000 gives you 96MP, so yes, it will be somewhere north of 12k.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 24, 2021)

Fran Decatta said:


> Would be pure pleasure to do panorama pictures of landscapes with this body and a supertele. Insane... Also wonder how many HDD would need to store this picture
> 
> Now, really, I wish to see more news about this camera


I'm doing it now with the GFX100....it makes for really great images and well...Hard Drive space is relatively cheap these days...but you don't spray and pray that often.

You think that's bad..wait till you use pixel shift (I"m sure the canon will have it too)...and you start dealing with files that are about 1.5GB *each*.

fun stuff!!

cayenne


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us.
> 
> I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance. I am very tempted to buy R5 but I plan to wait for another year or so to see if they can show us something truly amazing.
> 
> and last but not least, 45MP and 100MP doesn't have a meaningful difference unless you are a specific kind of photographers.


5DS/R DR was a big step up from the 5DIII - on par with the later 5DIV at or above ISO 400. Not SONY territory for sure, but also not bad if you ask me. We can hope that once again the high MPIX Canon has better DR than the preceding R5. We will see.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 24, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> mostly agree, but AF and tracking still could be improved.. I have R5 and it is very good and happy with the purchase, but there are certain situations where AF hunts, thankfully not many. The other big improvement if they can get it is global shutter, but highly unlikely in a higher megapixel camera. I'm stoked and love my R5 to bits, but Canon is really dropping the Mic lately (as in showing off it means business) and it's nice to see. I was pretty close to changing vendors before the R5/R6 came out


Certainly still room for AF improvement. All Canon's mirrorless cameras suffer from not "falling back" if the AF looks "past" the intended focus point. It sort of sticks to the background it aquires. And you really struggle to get it "back" on track again. This would probably be the biggest upgrade for now.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


The MP counters are d****d


----------



## amorse (Mar 24, 2021)

Well, as someone who is firmly in the target market and has been waiting for a higher MP camera I'm pretty excited to see how this thing performs. Personally, I was more than happy with the reported 80MP, but I'd be just as happy to look at 100MP.

My biggest concern with such high pixel density is determining the effective aperture where the benefits of such high resolution start to really demand focus stacking (or a tilt shift lens, I guess) to maximize quality for landscape photography. Regardless, it sounds like a really interesting tool, albeit with some additional considerations to put all those MPs to their full use!


----------



## Dustyj (Mar 24, 2021)

Could we get some new RF glass before this is released?


----------



## Refraction (Mar 24, 2021)

Heaven for the pixel peeper brigade.


----------



## reef58 (Mar 24, 2021)

I think Canon is trying to kill my back account, 100mp, C70, R5C, R1. Yikes better get back to work.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm curious about the release order.

Is this right?

-RFc (end of 2021)
-R1 (end of 2021)
-100 mp R (2022)


----------



## pzyber (Mar 24, 2021)

Sounds like a R1s.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Mar 24, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I will take a 100mp with a good amount of salt but If Canon does introduce a camera with 100 or more MP it will closer to $5k mark is my guess


I'd be even bolder, and suggest somewhat north of $5k!


Billybob said:


> Okay, I'll bite.
> 
> I don't need it and won't be buying it, but if true, I applaud Canon for going all the way to 100 rather than compromise at 80MP or similar. The resolution pretty much must be (at least) doubled to provide a perceptible benefit. 80MP is simply not a sufficiently large increase to provide significant benefits. 80MP would have duplicated the mistake Sony did with their 60MP camera. Without extreme pixel peeping I struggle--no--I don't see an improvement over images from their 42MP cameras. Thus, if Canon is going to ratchet up the pixel count, by all means break the 100MP barrier.
> 
> Of course, what lenses can resolve that resolution, who has the technique to take handheld shots at that resolution, and defraction sets in at f/2.8, and...


If it's aimed at landscapers, then a tripod would almost certainly be used, and quite possibly primes too. (Of course, everyone has their own ways of doing things).


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Mar 24, 2021)

Forgive my tech ignorance, but does RF mount mean it absolutely _has_ to be a 35mm full frame sensor (rather than being just a little larger)? Just wondering if they can squeeze any more sensor real estate in there (not a lot, just a bit) to help with mp count?


----------



## navastronia (Mar 24, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Forgive my tech ignorance, but does RF mount mean it absolutely _has_ to be a 35mm full frame sensor (rather than being just a little larger)? Just wondering if they can squeeze any more sensor real estate in there (not a lot, just a bit) to help with mp count?



The image circles of many RF primes are reportedly quite large, which is why and how they can achieve so many stops of IBIS stabilization on the R5 and R6. I would say it's possible, but unlikely, that Canon would use a larger sensor for the camera in question. I expect they will stick to a 35mm full frame sensor rather than bumping up to the semi-medium format 44 x 33 mm size sensor that's found in the likes of the GFX100 even if many RF primes would cover it.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 24, 2021)

cayenne said:


> I'm doing it now with the GFX100....it makes for really great images and well...Hard Drive space is relatively cheap these days...but you don't spray and pray that often.
> 
> You think that's bad..wait till you use pixel shift (I"m sure the canon will have it too)...and you start dealing with files that are about 1.5GB *each*.
> 
> ...



I was just joking about the space in HDD  already saw a jpg with pixel shift, and the amount of detail is awesome.

Having an R6 my "record" is actually a little bit more than 300 mpx in panorama landscape, using the 135mm. Of course. just for fun, having in mind that I work as a wedding photographer.


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 24, 2021)

Refraction said:


> Heaven for the pixel peeper brigade.


I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 24, 2021)

cayenne said:


> I'm doing it now with the GFX100....it makes for really great images and well...Hard Drive space is relatively cheap these days...but you don't spray and pray that often.
> 
> You think that's bad..wait till you use pixel shift (I"m sure the canon will have it too)...and you start dealing with files that are about 1.5GB *each*.
> 
> ...


Quad pixel?


----------



## cayenne (Mar 24, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I'd be even bolder, and suggest somewhat north of $5k!
> 
> If it's aimed at landscapers, then a tripod would almost certainly be used, and quite possibly primes too. (Of course, everyone has their own ways of doing things).


I"m guessing they'll slap IBIS in there too for handheld.....they did this quite well with the GFX100 and 100S...works great.
I have to imagine Canon will do this too in a very successful fashion.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2021)

100+ MP is definitely doable and has been. Its the processing and autofocus that are the difficult factors. Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400. I doubt if a 120 MP sensor would have quad pixel, but it will happen. Does anyone remember when people argued that anything over 2 or 3 MP was impossible?


----------



## Pixel (Mar 24, 2021)

Probably the only way I’d be interested is if it was a MF sensor. It may have the resolution but you can’t get the “MF look” out of full frame no matter how many pixels it has.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 24, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


But 12k (12288x8192 sensor @ 3:2 = ~100mp) would be possible with video stills @ ~80mp


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 24, 2021)

If the future is a choice of a new R... body(with a smaller MP sensor and QP) vs R5s(with a higher MP sensor with DP), then I would favor buying the smaller MP sensor with QP as it will always focus faster, more accurately, and more reliably. I've been quite happy with 45MP in the R5 and really want QP in my next sensor. If it happens to have both QP and even higher MPs then that'd be truly great!

Also, even though I don't know the real specs of the R5s, I'm going to guess it will be $4899 USD !


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 24, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 100+ MP is definitely doable and has been. Its the processing and autofocus that are the difficult factors. Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400. I doubt if a 120 MP sensor would have quad pixel, but it will happen. Does anyone remember when people argued that anything over 2 or 3 MP was impossible?


I've followed digital cameras since inception and still amuses me people resist the new capabilities/features etc. There are plenty of used cameras if the new stuff doesn't grab you 

besides I want petapixel cameras so I can see the model's cellular structure in detail! ;-)


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 24, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Probably the only way I’d be interested is if it was a MF sensor. It may have the resolution but you can’t get the “MF look” out of full frame no matter how many pixels it has.


As someone who still shoots with real MF, in 6x7, in all honesty I think the “medium format look” is everywhere now. What is, or was the medium format look ? It’s an expression from film days and was the result of noiseless, smooth, well defined and pin sharp images, often with very shallow dof if portraits and the subject bang in focus. It was always much easier to accurately focus a MF camera than it was 35 mil due to the size of the viewfinder. We have all that now with even a crop digital camera, so IMHO the “MF look” is ubiquitous today.
However cramming 100mp into a FF sensor will create undesirable side effects. If someone really needs 100mp I think they’d be better served with a larger format. When resolving detail a long way off and very small, so the likes of landscape photography, diffraction will begin to impact on the visible IQ at around the f/11 mark, and I’m guessing shot noise (photon noise) will be quite apparent in the likes of skies at native output. Not that that’s a big problem but some people won’t like it.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ...Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400...


Are you sure about that? This is what Canon's Rudy Winston says about dual pixel autofocus:



> Each pixel on the CMOS imaging sensor has two separate, light-sensitive photodiodes, which convert light into an electronic signal. Independently, each half of a pixel detects light through separate micro lenses, atop each pixel. During AF detection, the two halves of each pixel -- the two photodiodes -- send separate signals, which are analyzed for focus information. Then, an instant later when an actual image or video frame is recorded, the two separate signals from each pixel are combined into one single one, for image capturing purposes.



That doesn't sound like double the number of pixels to me.


----------



## dwarven (Mar 24, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.



The only thing is that lens is going to bottleneck the sensor. You'll need the sharpest, most high quality lenses to get the most out of it. I'm not saying the lens is bad. I have it and it produces great shots on the R6. I just think you'll be disappointed using it on a 100MP sensor.


----------



## AcaPixus (Mar 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


You EOS R5 and R6 owners better put you used and outdated cameras up for sale while they are still worth anything ;-)


----------



## cgc (Mar 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully no more AA filter for such a camera.


With increasing resolution there is even more justification for using an AA filter.
The filter can be weaker so detail isn't actually lost at small enough apertures (anyway diffraction limited).
A 100MP sensor is free from aliasing from F11 (just as free as a 50MP one at F16).
And you have more pixels to start with.


----------



## dwarven (Mar 24, 2021)

navastronia said:


> The image circles of many RF primes are reportedly quite large, which is why and how they can achieve so many stops of IBIS stabilization on the R5 and R6.



And yet, my EM-5 Mark III has far better IBIS than my R6. The image circles on those 4/3 lenses are tiny!


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 24, 2021)

dwarven said:


> The only thing is that lens is going to bottleneck the sensor. You'll need the sharpest, most high quality lenses to get the most out of it. I'm not saying the lens is bad. I have it and it produces great shots on the R6. I just think you'll be disappointed using it on a 100MP sensor.


agree. its a good lens, bang for buck... but yes these new generation cameras need better glass to really take advantage


----------



## navastronia (Mar 24, 2021)

dwarven said:


> And yet, my EM-5 Mark III has far better IBIS than my R6. The image circles on those 4/3 lenses are tiny!



I mean, it's more about the ratio of image circle to sensor size, not the absolute size of the circle. Anyway, this is all anecdotal and I may very well be wrong.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Mar 24, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


I'm glad someone did the math. I was just about to Google this.


----------



## dwarven (Mar 24, 2021)

navastronia said:


> I mean, it's more about the ratio of image circle to sensor size, not the absolute size of the circle. Anyway, this is all anecdotal and I may very well be wrong.



Yeah, sorry. I just wanted to brag about Olympus for a minute because it doesn't get enough love lol


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2021)

Dustyj said:


> Could we get some new RF glass before this is released?


Is there a lack of lenses I wasn't aware of? You state that like it's the M series.


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But 12k (12288x8192 sensor @ 3:2 = ~100mp) would be possible with video stills @ ~80mp


The 4k body isn't cold yet....


----------



## NKD (Mar 24, 2021)

Keen for this. Using x2 5dsR's for architecture stills. Finger has been hovering the purchase button for R5's, although no need for video.. So the 5dsR still is king without an AA filter, if you know how to sharpen correctly.

Keen for ergonomics of a 1dx / smaller hybrid with vertical shooting. Less electronics would be good, can do without the new viewfinders.. Long-life battery & durability in weather is preferred. Pray this utilizes my abundant LP6 /n or compatible batteries. 

Sure my current EF TS glass will hold up well. 100mp great for cropping, where needed. Yet to upgrade to any 2020 - 2021 ACR for the AI resize tools, the new gimmicky LR interface slow down 10+ years of workflow + is buggy. Tempted to install a Virtual Machine, if this is ever required. Although may have issues opening edited RAW / XMP files from the new ACR.


----------



## GMAX (Mar 24, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Hated by reviewers. Loved by users.


Confirmed Love my 5DS


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 24, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> The 4k body isn't cold yet....


True but video is a natural consequence of the sensor size for stills. Not including video would be mistake and there is a market for 12k albeit small eg BM Ursa (although it is 12288x6840 in S35 format up to 60fps). The limitation would be the bandwidth/processing power. Internal 1:1 raw recording would be prohibitively expensive but following BM's approach with compression at 5:1, 8:1, 12:1 and even 18:1 means that it can be stored on USH-II SD cards.
If the R5s is ~100mp then providing 12k/30 with appropriate cinema lite compression would be an impressive camera even for 10 minute clips before overheating. There could even be 2 models with 12k or not with a significant premium for the video version


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> True but video is a natural consequence of the sensor size for stills. Not including video would be mistake and there is a market for 12k albeit small eg BM Ursa (although it is 12288x6840 in S35 format up to 60fps). The limitation would be the bandwidth/processing power. Internal 1:1 raw recording would be prohibitively expensive but following BM's approach with compression at 5:1, 8:1, 12:1 and even 18:1 means that it can be stored on USH-II SD cards.
> If the R5s is ~100mp then providing 12k/30 with appropriate cinema lite compression would be an impressive camera even for 10 minute clips before overheating. There could even be 2 models with 12k or not with a significant premium for the video version


You know, that was TLTR for me, (not to mention BORING- I say that in my best Villanelle accent) strictly stills here, so why bother, right? And no, it's not something I care to learn. *click*


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 25, 2021)

Why? Sorry the returns are greatly dimninished as we've seen with the Sony A7RIV. With the Fuji GFX prices being so good, just get MF if you really need 100MP. With the new AI software around it's easy to get superb upressed results that you can't tell aren't native. I'm regularly using Topaz AI gigapixel for 10-40% upscale on my bird shots. If the source material is good the output looks fantastic. You could easily turn a 45MP landscape shot ifrom the R5 into a 90MP shot that. looks just as good. Haven't tried Adobe's new software yet. I think the current 45-50MP is more than enough for 35mm sensor.


----------



## lo lite (Mar 25, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP


And 179044352 Pixels if the Sensor should also shoot in 3:2 Format


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 25, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> You know, that was TLTR for me, (not to mention BORING- I say that in my best Villanelle accent) strictly stills here, so why bother, right? And no, it's not something I care to learn. *click*


Strange that my post was too long to read (and perhaps learn something) but you have the time to respond. If not interested... move on and don't comment.
and Villanelle was a great character and actor


----------



## randfee (Mar 25, 2021)

what's the resolution limit of current lenses, does anybody know or have a link to actual data besides their official MTF charts? Looking at those however, I can't even find a single of their RF primes that would properly take advantage of a further decrease in pixel size. The R5 has ( I think) roughly 4.4 micrometers pixel pitch. Taking into account the Bayer-pattern, let's say the effective color pixel size is 15µm. 

This supposed high resolution camera is then probably the reason why we didn't get sensor shift on the R5... and probably never will.


----------



## Panda248 (Mar 25, 2021)

Imagine the file size!


----------



## SnowMiku (Mar 25, 2021)

I read many reports that the 90D 32.5MP sensor had problems with shutter shock and blurring at 100% but from my experience all of these reports were false, even shooting handheld with the 70-300mm IS USM II in low light I've never had a problem.

If you need or want the 100MP Full-frame sensor then just go for it.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 25, 2021)

randfee said:


> what's the resolution limit of current lenses, does anybody know or have a link to actual data besides their official MTF charts? Looking at those however, I can't even find a single of their RF primes that would properly take advantage of a further decrease in pixel size. The R5 has ( I think) roughly 4.4 micrometers pixel pitch. Taking into account the Bayer-pattern, let's say the effective color pixel size is 15µm.
> 
> This supposed high resolution camera is then probably the reason why we didn't get sensor shift on the R5... and probably never will.



Resolution doesn't work quite that way. Improving the sensor will improve the system resolution even with a poor lens. Now at some point more MP won't visibly improve the final result to a human being, but I think for 35mm size that point is past 100mp.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.


How is the sigma 150-600 lens and 1.4x TC? What body are you using it on? I'm working on figuring out what telephoto lense to get for the R5. I want the RF100-500 but looking to see what alternatives would work with the R5 and what success/failures others have had with these types of lenses.


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


My computer isn't anything special but it doesn't really matter. For archival projects the amount of developing is minimal, and can be done in batches. Then I work with exported jpegs. That said, a fast SSD makes a difference.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 25, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I will take a 100mp with a good amount of salt but If Canon does introduce a camera with 100 or more MP it will closer to $5k mark is my guess


Probably. The 5Ds cameras were more expensive than the 5DIII, so makes sense.


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> How is the sigma 150-600 lens and 1.4x TC? What body are you using it on? I'm working on figuring out what telephoto lense to get for the R5. I want the RF100-500 but looking to see what alternatives would work with the R5 and what success/failures others have had with these types of lenses.


to be clear it's the Sigma 150-600 C with the Canon v1 1.4x TC. The Sigma 1.4x is ... very soft. Its on an R5 with a canon EF to RF converter. 
You can get fantastic results as you can see in a couple of attachments and the price is quite reasonable, but for things like Birds In Flight the weight and tracking is not going to be as good the canon RF 100-500 nor quite as sharp as the RF 100-500. However I can still get very decent shots, has longer range and cost is half or less than the Canon glass.. I'd love the RF 100-500, buuuuut that cost


. Couple of samples using this combo

also attaching a BIF .. this is where cropping / high MP helps.. the original size vs the cropped.. surprised to get those results, that eagle was at least 400


or 500ft away


----------



## gdanmitchell (Mar 25, 2021)

"... the equally loved and hated EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R."

What the heck?


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 25, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> In theory pixel size should be directly related to dynamic range because of full well capacity, and lower density sensors should have a distinct advantage. In practice the 36mp D800 sensor set the bar for DR back in...2012?...and the needle has barely moved since that time. Also during that time the sensors to match or improve upon the D800 have all been high density sensors.
> 
> We even see this with Canon's old sensor tech as the 5Ds/sR had the best dynamic range for Canon prior to Canon's newer ADC tech in the 5D mark IV, 1DX mark II, etc. The 5Ds/sR had better DR than the original 1DX and the 6D.
> 
> ...


5DS R was lagging behind Sony A7R II BIG BIG TIME. (we are talking about 1.5~2 EV) I can even see that from my picture to others under similar condition. It is really not impressive at all. That is why I would worry about this new camera again. I am imagining it will be similar situation here - A camera without AA filter too for landscape.

Let's hope they are showing us same magic they delivered in R5. I would totally buy it if they can even just retain DR at the same level of R5 even with slower AF performance. I only do landscape and wildlife so no need for these super fast AF.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> to be clear it's the Sigma 150-600 C with the Canon v1 1.4x TC. The Sigma 1.4x is ... very soft. Its on an R5 with a canon EF to RF converter.
> You can get fantastic results as you can see in a couple of attachments and the price is quite reasonable, but for things like Birds In Flight the weight and tracking is not going to be as good the canon RF 100-500 nor quite as sharp as the RF 100-500. However I can still get very decent shots, has longer range and cost is half or less than the Canon glass.. I'd love the RF 100-500, buuuuut that cost
> View attachment 196484
> View attachment 196485
> ...


Nice shots! Thanks for the info. I’ve just started getting into the bird photography and only have the RF85mm 1.2 right now. I’ve mostly been practicing and having to crop. Topaz denoise and sharpen do some amazing things for those crops.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 25, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> Let's hope they are showing us same magic they delivered in R5. I would totally buy it if they can even just retain DR at the same level of R5 even with slower AF performance. I only do landscape and wildlife so no need for these super fast AF.



My point was that pixel size does not determine DR. I would guess that ADC architecture does, and Canon is not going to back to the ADC architecture they had prior to new bodies like the 5D mark IV, R, and now R5.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


The camera isn't for me (my R5 is plenty enough) but I don't think that a R5s will need 20fps eshutter on it either for most use cases. The 5DSR has been used for birding etc but wasn't its primary audience.
My 2013 specced up MBP is much slower now with R5 files vs 5Div files... just waiting for the new 16" MBP/M1 chipset to be released before upgrading and it should fly  
It will be interesting to see the Geekbench comparison with the new MBPs vs Mac Pro. The M1 mini etc is not too shabby!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 25, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> My point was that pixel size does not determine DR. I would guess that ADC architecture does, and Canon is not going to back to the ADC architecture they had prior to new bodies like the 5D mark IV, R, and now R5.


It does, but correlation between pixel size and DR isn't simple. The size of the pixel affects well capacity, but there's a number of other factors.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 25, 2021)

Sounds like a good camera to use with TS-E lenses for landscapes, shifting the lens in all directions and stitching 17 or so pictures together.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Sounds like a good camera to use with TS-E lenses for landscapes, shifting the lens in all directions and stitching 17 or so pictures together.


Ouch that comment made my computer tremble when I read it !


----------



## Ph0t0 (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


I'm still using a 2015 PC to edit Fuji GFX 100 files and much larger 5Dsr panoramas and it still gets the job done. At the time I paid about 2400eur for the machine. Which is significantly less than I spent on other equipement, even though the PC is the machine that spends the most time running. Sooo... I don't really see a problem a problem if a 2022 camera will have 100MP. 
And I asodon't see a problem in getting a new 2000$ computer in 2022 that will handle those files with ease.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 25, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


If it's true, I'm diving into the R system. My 5DS R's both have well over 100k clicks each and are over due for replacement.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 25, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It does, but correlation between pixel size and DR isn't simple. The size of the pixel affects well capacity, but there's a number of other factors.



As I said earlier, FWC hasn't seemed to matter for 10 years. I'm not sure why, but I wouldn't expect it to impede a 100mp R body.


----------



## Chig (Mar 25, 2021)

Be interesting if Canon use a cropped version of this sensor in the R7 which would be about 40mp as a crop sensor


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 25, 2021)

BeenThere said:


> Quad pixel?


If anything, I'd say this camera may be just single pixel, that is not even dual pixel. If it's not video oriented it doesn't need a super fast AF.


----------



## chasingrealness (Mar 25, 2021)

jvillain said:


> It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.


I was thinking the same thing after reading this. I do both studio and landscape - those are pretty much all I really do professionally as a photographer.

As a studio photographer, I’d prefer a larger body, perhaps something with the ability to mount portrait mode on a tripod natively (a super minor thing but details like this matter in the studio), etc. etc. 

As a landscape photographer, I want a weather-sealed EOS RP body with a 100mp IBIS sensor. Not sure that is even possible yet, but it’s what I want.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 25, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 100+ MP is definitely doable and has been. Its the processing and autofocus that are the difficult factors. Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400. I doubt if a 120 MP sensor would have quad pixel, but it will happen. Does anyone remember when people argued that anything over 2 or 3 MP was impossible?


Why do you think pixel size makes AF difficult? Do not see that connection as we have not seen it in practice.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 25, 2021)

gdanmitchell said:


> "... the equally loved and hated EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R."
> 
> What the heck?


Most 5DS/R reviews were quite negative. "Only for studio" was a popular claim. Curious, as it beat the "all-rounder" 5DIII in almost every aspect imaginable. Camera was also damaged because the original Adobe RAW profile was extremely poor leading to heavy clipping of whites and blacks - and thus a perceived lack of DR. Finally, reviewers did not understand the optical properties of handheld induced blur leading to claims that it was more difficult to hand hold the 5DS/R than other cameras. Some of these misunderstandings linger.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


We are seeing another leap in processing power and storage speed right now - as reflected in the price of my AMD shares over the last year.  1.600$ home build and you are flying. No problem.


----------



## Neutral (Mar 25, 2021)

Ph0t0 said:


> I'm still using a 2015 PC to edit Fuji GFX 100 files and much larger 5Dsr panoramas and it still gets the job done. At the time I paid about 2400eur for the machine. Which is significantly less than I spent on other equipement, even though the PC is the machine that spends the most time running. Sooo... I don't really see a problem a problem if a 2022 camera will have 100MP.
> And I asodon't see a problem in getting a new 2000$ computer in 2022 that will handle those files with ease.


 Same here, edit my GFX100 files on my old 2013 year laptop (4cores, 32gb RAM + Geforce 780m card) using Capture One and Affinity Photo and all runs smooth and fast, almost instantly. DXO Photolab also has no issues processing them, only Deep Prime NR is very slow as it requires more recent graphic card - not supporting very old 780m and thus using CPU instead. To run smooth and fast one needs al least 32gb RAM, when I open GFX100 file in Capture One and start edit it then memory utilization jumps up to 17gb, sometimes to 20gb. I always keep task manager open to see hardware recources utilization. Affinity Photo uses twice less memory but very fast - it using both graphics cards - one intel on motherboard and discrete Ndivia 780M.
So any up-to-date laptop or desktop with 32gb RAM will be able to process files from rumored Canon 100mpx camera smooth and fast.


----------



## Neutral (Mar 25, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Why? Sorry the returns are greatly dimninished as we've seen with the Sony A7RIV. With the Fuji GFX prices being so good, just get MF if you really need 100MP. With the new AI software around it's easy to get superb upressed results that you can't tell aren't native. I'm regularly using Topaz AI gigapixel for 10-40% upscale on my bird shots. If the source material is good the output looks fantastic. You could easily turn a 45MP landscape shot ifrom the R5 into a 90MP shot that. looks just as good. Haven't tried Adobe's new software yet. I think the current 45-50MP is more than enough for 35mm sensor.


Agree here. Putting more megapixels on FF sensor do not add much benefits. For 100mpx it is better go with larger than FF formats. GFX100 overall image quality is noticeably better than from Sony a7riv despite the fact that the pixel pitch is the same. GF lens IQ for GFX system is outstanding. IBIS on GFX is also amazing - better than on a7rIV . And new GFX100s price is very competitive. And this system is not that slow as many think - it can shoot 5fps and setting performace to AF and selecting propers AF mode ( almost exact same as on Canon 1DX line) and using fast AF lenses with linear focus motors (similar to latest Sony linear AF motors), they have LM in the name - e.g. GF45-100mm F4.0 R LM WR OIS . With that GFX100 can shoot moderately fast moving objects - I did for fashion shoots with relatively fast moving models and was surprised first time with the results. I even think now to sell my Sony a7rIV just to fund A1 - 50mpx is more than enough when extreme fast AF with high precision is required - especially for low light fast action using extreemly fast AF 50mmf1.2 GM.
I am not sure how well rumored Canon FF 100mpx camera would compete with new GFX100s for scenarious where there is no fast action, there also rumors that there will be even less expensive MF camera from Fuji. But for people shooting birds and espesialy BIF using Canon system this probably could be the best camera choice considering fast AF and lens choice, depending on high ISO performance, especially noise in shadows, but here is DXO Deep Prime NR is a best friend


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Strange, I haven't seen this with mine at all. There's noticeable color fringing in OOF areas but this is true of every fast lens shooting wide open. CA at the plane of focus is very well controlled. Your lens might need service.


No service needed. I'm speaking about the specific condition of bright daytime backlight. In the shade/overcast, or when the sun is low, no problem. Purple everywhere, otherwise. While fringing may be a problem for a lot of fast lenses, it is not true of all. Specifically the lenses with Canon's BR element: EF 35mm f/1.4L II, and the RF 85mm f/1.2L.


----------



## mustafa (Mar 25, 2021)

I just want an R6 with a 25MP+ sensor.


----------



## gatabo (Mar 25, 2021)

This news make sense, I suppose Canon is testing (at least) two High Resolution sensors, one with roughtly *100MP* and the other with *115MP* and this is why, Canon lovers 8K  but 12K is good too  and both resolutions can be used for the first *12K FF* mirrorless camera, but once cropped at *1.6X* (the "standard" for Canon) it will be a perfect 8K resolution, *DCI-8K(8192p)* for a *115MP* sensor and *TV-8K(7680p)* with a *100MP* sensor, both perfect for existing Canon APS-C camera lenses and also the *Super35mm* Cinema glasses, this way the wafer used for cutting FF sensors could also be used for a future *R7 APS-C* camera, with 39MP or 45MP.

Canon already makes 32.5MP crop cameras, the jump to 39MP is not that big, but 45MP could be also possible, DIGIC X has no problem with the R5 and it will probably be also used in the future R7.

*AA filter* should and proably will be used, Canon uses the hig-res low pass, it is a four-layer low pass filter that provides 16-point separation available first in the EOS-1D X Mark III and now also in the R5, with the ability of reducing moiré without a huge impacting in resolution.

Canon could use this filter or even something better, other camera maker aren't that much experienced with low pass filters and prefer to do without, at the very high risk of *false colors* generated with images containing high frequency patterns.

Canon the only time did without a low pass filter in the 5Dsr also offered the alternative with the 5Ds, there is no need to avoid the AA filter once you have 120MP or 100MP there is already plenty of resolution, the advantages of having a good AA are much more than the disadvantages. moreover, while undocumented, I think a camera without a good low pass filter will negatively impact the capabilities of Canon *dual or quad pixel AF*, as false colors could potentially mislead the AF algorithms.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Camera was also damaged because the original Adobe RAW profile was extremely poor leading to heavy clipping of whites and blacks - and thus a perceived lack of DR..


So true. Adobe did the same thing with the same version of the M3 raws. 

It's worth noting that DPReview *still *have the 5DS/r raw images from the original, ridiculous Adobe profile on their camera comparison tool. If you want to use that tool to assess the 5DS against other cameras it is important to download the raws and convert them yourself.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Are you sure about that? This is what Canon's Rudy Winston says about dual pixel autofocus:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound like double the number of pixels to me.


This comes from the confusion of what one would call a 'pixel'. Rudy counts 1 microlens as a pixel, regardless of how many diodes are underneath it. With DPAF you get 2 diodes per microlens, the DIGIC reads both of them to do AF. If you enable DP-RAW, it will store both values as well. So for every shot the camera needs to process all diodes. So on a 100MP DPAF sensor, that would be 200M diodes, a QPAF sensor would have 400M diodes. It does't really matter what you'd call them, diodes or pixels, the DIGIC still has to read and process all of them.
I suspect Canon doesn't call them pixels because they don't add resolution to the resulting image since they share the same microlens.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance.


This is a rather disingenuous statement to say the least !! As with the other Canon off sensor ADC cameras if you want the maximum quality that the sensor can bring it's important to nail the exposure, and if you do this then the 5DS/r has excellent shadow recovery and remarkable highlight recovery, certainly more than you can ever fit into the DR of a print or even high quality screen without looking ridiculous. I know some people have associated the shot noise (photon noise) of the 5DS as "poor quality" but this is just normal physics and you see the same in any very high mp / small pixel / large output sensor.

The meter on the 5DS is very good but even then I still use an incident light meter when practical.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No service needed. I'm speaking about the specific condition of bright daytime backlight. In the shade/overcast, or when the sun is low, no problem. Purple everywhere, otherwise. While fringing may be a problem for a lot of fast lenses, it is not true of all. Specifically the lenses with Canon's BR element: EF 35mm f/1.4L II, and the RF 85mm f/1.2L.


I tried a Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC and Sigma 50 Art when I was looking for a 50mm-ish prime. I thought the Tamron was OK but I found it an easy decision to go for the Sigma. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, has VC/IS and closer MFD, and it's not bad optically, so the Tamron does have its strengths. However, I thought the Sigma clearly had the better IQ. And at least when I was looking (some years ago now!), the Sigma didn't cost that much more than the Tamron either. As for colour fringing specifically, the Sigma does have some so I wouldn't expect it to be as good in that regard as one of the BR element lenses, but in my experience it had significantly less than the Tamron 45mm. Anyway, if you're not looking to spend money on RF lenses at the moment, might be worth testing a 50mm Art if there is any chance you can get your hands on one to give it a go.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> Let's hope they are showing us same magic they delivered in R5. I would totally buy it if they can even just retain DR at the same level of R5 even with slower AF performance. I only do landscape and wildlife so no need for these super fast AF.



I do not see the relation between MPX and auto focus speed. Read/write (fps) yes, but not focus speed.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> How is the sigma 150-600 lens and 1.4x TC? What body are you using it on? I'm working on figuring out what telephoto lense to get for the R5. I want the RF100-500 but looking to see what alternatives would work with the R5 and what success/failures others have had with these types of lenses.


If I were you, and could afford it, I'd get the RF 100-500 - you'll love the results. I have it and it's my favorite lens among those I have for the R5. If money is tight, I would pass on the RF 1.4 TC and rely on cropping and optional upsizing from raw in post if you want further tele reach or higher MP files for printing. That way you'd always have the 100-300 range intact instead of losing it with the TC on.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If anything, I'd say this camera may be just single pixel, that is not even dual pixel. If it's not video oriented it doesn't need a super fast AF.


Single pixel? I'd seriously doubt that Canon would do this after the excellent reviews / user experience / sales of the R cameras with DP. In fact I think it would torpedo the sales of it if it wasn't at least DP. What would they replace the AF with? Contrast detection? A handful of individual sensor regions reassigned for phase detection like in older sensors? It will have DP. I'm guessing they'll save the QP for more reasonable MP sensors in the short term. But if they get their QP tech down good enough they may transition all future sensors to it sooner than later.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> So true. Adobe did the same thing with the same version of the M3 raws.
> 
> It's worth noting that DPReview *still *have the 5DS/r raw images from the original, ridiculous Adobe profile on their camera comparison tool. If you want to use that tool to assess the 5DS against other cameras it is important to download the raws and convert them yourself.


Yes. They also still use their original faulty processed shots to support the review. History now, but a low point for dpreview imho.


----------



## John Wilde (Mar 25, 2021)

jam05 said:


> It's just March. Canon never releases cameras in an Olympic year early in March. Most often it's June. So you have to wait. You'll see a lot more leaks in April and May. And then in June, Bam! Same as last year, but right before the opening ceremonies. Canon always has the perfect timing. Reason every other manufacture either tries to release quickly or make a mistake and wait. Canon ruled the marketing in 2020. Heat or no heat, it was all about the R5. The entire second half of 2020. And now it's chatter all about "Active Cooling". The bar set by Canon.


Active Cooling = Fatter Camera. That's appropriate for a C series cinema camera, but I doubt that many still photographers want that.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> This comes from the confusion of what one would call a 'pixel'. Rudy counts 1 microlens as a pixel, regardless of how many diodes are underneath it. With DPAF you get 2 diodes per microlens, the DIGIC reads both of them to do AF. If you enable DP-RAW, it will store both values as well. So for every shot the camera needs to process all diodes. So on a 100MP DPAF sensor, that would be 200M diodes, a QPAF sensor would have 400M diodes. It does't really matter what you'd call them, diodes or pixels, the DIGIC still has to read and process all of them.
> I suspect Canon doesn't call them pixels because they don't add resolution to the resulting image since they share the same microlens.


There's another thing to remember about DP or QP that is not talked about: The very nature of their design is for each "diode" to produce the same value when the image at that point is in focus, and to produce differing +/- values when it is out of focus - that's how they can tell you how much & in what direction it is out of focus at that spot. Regarding increasing MP claims by calling 2 diodes "2 pixels" via extra interpolation: if you're out of focus (eg. for big background blur) then it doesn't matter how many diodes you have at that spot since it's a blur, and if you're in focus at that spot then it doesn't matter either since they produce the same signal. So the DP or QP doesn't really provide for useful higher(2x or 4x) MP claims, but it does provide for excellent phase detection AF which is what it was designed for.


----------



## John Wilde (Mar 25, 2021)

In 2015, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, so they have had plenty of time to work on high resolution cameras.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 25, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In 2015, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, so they have had plenty of time to work on high resolution cameras.


And that 120MP was APS-H, so 200-ish MP for FF. But that wasn't a DPAF sensor


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

Fischer said:


> We are seeing another leap in processing power and storage speed right now - as reflected in the price of my AMD shares over the last year.  1.600$ home build and you are flying. No problem.


I'm not a PC guy. Definitely a Mac guy. Not going to 'build' a Mac for $600. I'm not knocking PCs, just been using Mac for the last 25 years.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.


Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).

While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.

I used to use my MBP mostly as a desktop...it was always on a rack, plugged in and hooked to large external monitors, keyboards (I love the old IBM style buckling "clicky" ones)....wacom tablet and external working drives (for image files and one SSD dedicated for cache for various apps).

But with image capture tech changing so fast, and higher and higher fidelity files coming in with accompanying size increases, I'm not so sure the laptop for everything paradigm is as valid as it used to be.

I did spring last year for a Mac Pro.....for it to be upgradeable. However, I may get zonked with this myself, since Apple has switched away from Intel....I'm actually hoping at some point, there will be a chip/motherboard upgrade at some point offered so I could keep the MP up to date as long as possible.

I mean for now, I"m not worried, but I would prefer this large of an investment to last 8-10 years if possible with upgrades.

But anyway...this has been something that has been simmering in the back of my brain for awhile. It is time again when purchasing computer equipment for our media needs...to try to plan for ever taxing needs on both storage and processing (CPU and especially GPU) power.

Disk space, is the relatively easy one....

I"m currently working with 100MP images, about to experiment with pixel shifting to a 400MP one where the resultant image is about 1.25GB each....
I had to really spend a few weeks cleaning off my existing external work drive....I'm currently looking into maybe seeing what type NAS multi-drive system I can replace my single large external working drive with...that would prove expandable over time by adding larger and larger individual drives. 
I see the future...and it takes up a *LOT* of space.

Sure, no one is throwing out masterpiece images of the not too distant past taken and printed form 8-10MP sensors.

But, that's not where things are going....so, it is something to keep in mind while planning, since photography/videography doesn't stop with the camera shutter activation.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).
> 
> While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.
> 
> ...


I feel your pain with the chip switch. I had the G4 and multiple G5 machines back in the day. Then apple switched to the Intel chipset. Looks like now they are back to their own chipset. I wouldn't count on anything in your computer being upgradable other than what your choices are in the box as you bought it. My G5s are all in the heap pile now. I switched to using MBPs because of the ability to travel with them. Mobility is just more important and yes when I'm at home it's connected up to 2 large monitors, wireless keyboard, external hard drives and the like. It does a fine job. My only point is the slow down I've experienced using larger R5 files vs the R files. So personally I couldn't imagine wanting to or needing to use 100mp photos. This is not only due to the limitations of the computer itself but also the transfer speeds of usb cables. While my MBP has 4 USC-C outlets, There are limitations with this technology currently (like not being able to have an external multi usb-c hub because usb-c can't be daisy chained) but no matter what folks are using for a computer there is a bottle neck at the transfer rate of files. In the end everyone has their own use cases and will justify what they need/want. For me 45mp images are large enough and with AI technology from companies like Topaz I would just find 100mp to be more of a burden. The R5 gets amazing detail out of the box and if I should ever find myself needing to go bigger, AI has arrived.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).
> 
> While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.
> 
> ...


Whilst I see the direction and demand for higher resolution within the photographic community I have not seen any demand or need from my customers for higher resolution deliveries.

Who are these end users demanding 80, 100, 400 mp images?


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> I feel your pain with the chip switch. I had the G4 and multiple G5 machines back in the day. Then apple switched to the Intel chipset. Looks like now they are back to their own chipset. I wouldn't count on anything in your computer being upgradable other than what your choices are in the box as you bought it. My G5s are all in the heap pile now. I switched to using MBPs because of the ability to travel with them. Mobility is just more important and yes when I'm at home it's connected up to 2 large monitors, wireless keyboard, external hard drives and the like. It does a fine job. My only point is the slow down I've experienced using larger R5 files vs the R files. So personally I couldn't imagine wanting to or needing to use 100mp photos. This is not only due to the limitations of the computer itself but also the transfer speeds of usb cables. While my MBP has 4 USC-C outlets, There are limitations with this technology currently (like not being able to have an external multi usb-c hub because usb-c can't be daisy chained) but no matter what folks are using for a computer there is a bottle neck at the transfer rate of files. In the end everyone has their own use cases and will justify what they need/want. For me 45mp images are large enough and with AI technology from companies like Topaz I would just find 100mp to be more of a burden. The R5 gets amazing detail out of the box and if I should ever find myself needing to go bigger, AI has arrived.


"usb-c can't be daisy chained?"  

In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> "usb-c can't be daisy chained?"
> 
> In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?


The MacBook is thunderbolt and they can be daisy chained. You can plug at least 6 devices per port, there are now TB hubs and most TB devices have two ports so can act as pass through.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 25, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> OK just thinking out loud, but with Adobe's new Super Resolution I get 122 MP (effectively) out of my 30.4 MP R. It really looks pretty wonderful, but I only see it when I zoom way in, like 200%. If I had to make a print 48" wide and stand with my nose right on top of it, sure I'll see that resolution, but who does that?
> 
> And when I look at the size-matched comparisons in DxO Mark of the 5Ds vs the 5D IV, there doesn't appear to be much gain, if any, in image quality by shooting big and scaling down.
> 
> ...





privatebydesign said:


> Whilst I see the direction and demand for higher resolution within the photographic community I have not seen any demand or need from my customers for higher resolution deliveries.
> 
> Who are these end users demanding 80, 100, 400 mp images?



No discussion about how many pixels you need makes sense with out taking into account what you are viewing it on and how close to it you are. Take three extremes. If you are looking at a cell phone from 20 feet away you may be good with one pixel. If you are looking at a pano that stretches the width of a wall from just a couple of feet back you are going to be stitching your 100MP+ files together. Video screens that cover entire walls are a thing now, not a common thing but tech doesn't stand still. How close you are to it will determine how many pixels you need.

Beyond that customers often ask for multiple crops from the same image. A 1x2 for cell phones there goes 70% of your pixels, a landscape for computer/TV screens etc, point of sales signage can be all kinds of crazy shapes and sizes.. Then they can ask for a hero shot but then be able to pick detail crops out of that picture. Big pro companies understand the nature of the tech but you would be shocked at the crazy ahem "stuff" that that the not so pro companies will ask for. The amateurs always know more than the pros, just ask them.  




macrunning said:


> Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.



People edit 4K video on the new $800 M1 with 8G of memory with no problems and video is orders of magnitude more demanding than stills. If you can afford this camera and the lenses you can afford enough computer to edit it.



stevelee said:


> Sounds like a good camera to use with TS-E lenses for landscapes, shifting the lens in all directions and stitching 17 or so pictures together.



I started out thinking the opposite. Maybe there would be less need to stitch photos together. But then I remembered a pano that took up the width of a wall in a conference room I used to visit and it may have looked good on the computer but it looked like arse on on the wall because it didn't have any where near the required resolution so ya, your probably right.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 25, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> This comes from the confusion of what one would call a 'pixel'. Rudy counts 1 microlens as a pixel, regardless of how many diodes are underneath it. With DPAF you get 2 diodes per microlens, the DIGIC reads both of them to do AF. If you enable DP-RAW, it will store both values as well. So for every shot the camera needs to process all diodes. So on a 100MP DPAF sensor, that would be 200M diodes, a QPAF sensor would have 400M diodes. It does't really matter what you'd call them, diodes or pixels, the DIGIC still has to read and process all of them.
> I suspect Canon doesn't call them pixels because they don't add resolution to the resulting image since they share the same microlens.



DIGIC doesn't necessarily process all of them. they are summed on the sensor, and I suspect Canon is using ROI (region of interest) for DPAF these days, they were talking about it a while ago.

there's also no confusion. a pixel is the value based upon the output from the camera. it doesn't matter if it's made up of 2, 4, 8, 16 diode values, that's all internal to the camera. Even dual pixel RAW, you get two images, one with A side, the other with A+B. both have the same amount of "pixels".

100MP isn't that far of a each. the 32.5MP APS-C sensors are 82MP full frame equivalent. Canon was doing a 120MP DSLR sensor in the past, so 100MP? not so hard.

it's funny but I talked a week ago, about the fact that I believe Canon will go north of 100MP and here we are.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 25, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us.
> 
> I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance. I am very tempted to buy R5 but I plan to wait for another year or so to see if they can show us something truly amazing.
> 
> and last but not least, 45MP and 100MP doesn't have a meaningful difference unless you are a specific kind of photographers.



the 32.5MP APS-C sensors scale to 82MP.. and they are just fine. the 5Ds and 5DsR use entirely different sensor technology, and are at least 2 generations old in terms of Canon sensor technology from where we are now.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> "usb-c can't be daisy chained?"
> 
> In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?


You can't daisy chain more USB-C devices onto it. You can daisy chain older USB devices through a hub. I've been trying to find (for the better parts of a year now) to find a multi USB-C port. It doesn't exist. So you can only use 2 USB-C devices. If you were to get more USB-C devices you are SOL right now. One other thing to note is that you need one of those USB-C ports to power up/recharge your MBP!


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 25, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No service needed. I'm speaking about the specific condition of bright daytime backlight. In the shade/overcast, or when the sun is low, no problem. Purple everywhere, otherwise. While fringing may be a problem for a lot of fast lenses, it is not true of all. Specifically the lenses with Canon's BR element: EF 35mm f/1.4L II, and the RF 85mm f/1.2L.



I'm not entirely clear if it's CA at the plane of focus or bokeh CA that's the issue. With that said...

Since I tend to shoot this lens at night or in less contrasty situations (i.e. indoors) I just walked outside to try and recreate this. Power line against blue sky had virtually no CA at the plane of focus. Power line against a bright white cloud (full sun illuminating at an angle to the cloud) had some. But I've seen worse from other lenses in less stressful conditions, and it was easily corrected in PS.

Bokeh fringing is certainly there in all lighting conditions, but this is true for nearly every fast lens. Even the few lenses which correct for it, like the two you mention, still show it to some degree. My Tamron 45mm is better in this respect than the lens it replaced, a pre-ART 50mm f/1.4. But it's certainly not as good as those lenses which specifically try to correct it.

So if it's bokeh fringing which you hate, you would have to move to something like the 35 f/1.4L II. If it's fringing at the plane of focus, I still say something is off with your copy of the lens and it may be worth contacting Tamron to see if it can be corrected.

Investigating further: The Digital Picture came to a similar conclusion with the 45mm and 35mm (though the 35mm was a bit worse). I bring up the 35mm only because it's close in design and OpticalLimits.com found horrible purple fringing in their copy, at the plane of focus, much worse than TDP found in theirs. The samples at the two sites look like they came from different lenses. (OpticalLimits didn't test a 45mm.) So there could be a manufacturing variation in these lenses which leads to this. I have no idea if such a variation could be fixed after the fact.

(I don't mean to write so much in response to the comment you made. It just surprised me because I'm not seeing the same with my copy, and I was curious as to what might be going on.)


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> This is a rather disingenuous statement to say the least !! As with the other Canon off sensor ADC cameras if you want the maximum quality that the sensor can bring it's important to nail the exposure, and if you do this then the 5DS/r has excellent shadow recovery and remarkable highlight recovery, certainly more than you can ever fit into the DR of a print or even high quality screen without looking ridiculous. I know some people have associated the shot noise (photon noise) of the 5DS as "poor quality" but this is just normal physics and you see the same in any very high mp / small pixel / large output sensor.



Pretty much this. If you ETTR you can open up virtually black canyon walls against a bright blue sky with white clouds and hold detail, with low noise, across the full range. Actually, you can do that with a crop sensor 7D. The 5Ds/sR give you more DR than a 7D. Again, the 5Ds/sR are Portra territory in terms of total DR. Portra naturally had most of this in the highlights while any digital sensor will have most of its range in the shadows. But the point is that nobody has ever considered Portra to be a poor performer when it comes to latitude/DR.

That's not to say the Sony sensors or the 5D mark IV / R5 aren't better. They are. And that gives you more room to recover an exposure error, and maybe room to record a scene with one frame instead of two (depending on the scene; a lot of high DR scenes would exceed any sensor and require HDR techniques). But the way people talk about some of Canon's older models...I just can't help but think they are not nailing their exposures and practicing ETTR, and are therefore losing a couple stops of the sensor's full range. If you then compare this to someone who uses ETTR and maximizes the range on an R5 or a D850....


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The MacBook is thunderbolt and they can be daisy chained. You can plug at least 6 devices per port, there are now TB hubs and most TB devices have two ports so can act as pass through.


So is Thunderbolt a Mac protocol that happens to run over a USB-C port & wire? Or is it not a USB-C port & wire? I have a 15" 2016 MBP with 4 ports which I thought were USB-C, and macrunning mentioned his(her?) MBP with 4 ports whoose USB-C ports (I presume) can't be daisy-chained. So I'm confused, or I'm missing something?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> So is Thunderbolt a Mac protocol that happens to run over a USB-C port & wire? Or is it not a USB-C port & wire? I have a 15" 2016 MBP with 4 ports which I thought were USB-C, and macrunning mentioned his(her?) MBP with 4 ports whoose USB-C ports (I presume) can't be daisy-chained. So I'm confused, or I'm missing something?


Thunderbolt 3 is a souped up USB-C developed before USB-C was finalized. TB 3 cables are very different internally to USB-C cables in that they are much more capable, and expensive. USB-C cables will not deliver TB3 capabilities.









Thunderbolt 3 vs. USB-C: What’s the Difference?


Newer laptops often come loaded with a port that accepts a reversible plug and supports very fast transfer speeds. Do you know what it is? If you guessed the Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3.1 port, you’re right, and therein lies the problem.




www.howtogeek.com













Thunderbolt vs. USB-C: What's the Difference?


Thunderbolt ports look just like USB-C ports, but they're speedier, and the two have key inner differences. Here's how to tell them apart, plus crucial tips on which is better for charging, data transfer, and other uses.




www.pcmag.com


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> You can't daisy chain more USB-C devices onto it. You can daisy chain older USB devices through a hub. I've been trying to find (for the better parts of a year now) to find a multi USB-C port. It doesn't exist. So you can only use 2 USB-C devices. If you were to get more USB-C devices you are SOL right now. One other thing to note is that you need one of those USB-C ports to power up/recharge your MBP!


Those are Thunderbolt 3 ports, and you can chain together external drives, for example and adapter a disply-port monitor to the end. But yeah, no hub for loads of USB C I’ve seen...


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Thunderbolt 3 is a souped up USB-C developed before USB-C was finalized. TB 3 cables are very different internally to USB-C cables in that they are much more capable, and expensive. USB-C cables will not deliver TB3 capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, privatebydesign, for the links. So two TB3 ports should be just fine, and if you need more than 2 things (USB-C or TB3) connected, make sure there's a TB3 hub somewhere in at least one of the devices hooked up to the TB3 port with a TB3 wire.

"I feel much better now"


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Sounds like a good camera to use with TS-E lenses for landscapes, shifting the lens in all directions and stitching 17 or so pictures together.


The best shifting stitches you can do with the Canon TS-E’s is a 4 image diagonal shift that increases the sensor area by an effective 251%, so 100mp would become a 250+ more image. I do this pretty regularly with my mere 20mp sensor...

Of course you can pan stitch any number of images but you don’t need a TS-E for that!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, privatebydesign, for the links. So two TB3 ports should be just fine, and if you need more than 2 things (USB-C or TB3) connected, make sure there's a TB3 hub somewhere in at least one of the devices hooked up to the TB3 port with a TB3 wire.
> 
> "I feel much better now"


I jumped in with TB3 three years ago and haven’t looked back. I have a 4 port MBP and on my main desk I have a dock with large monitor, card readers, speakers, wired 10GbE. NAS, and a couple of external HDD’s along with charging the MBP all take just one connection! I have an external SSD that I take away with me that plugs direct into the MBP or my iPad (that has USB-C/TB3 port), as do my travel card reader, GoPro, DJI drone and gimbal, and B&W headphones. The only device I now have that is not simply USB-C/TB3 is my phone. I travel with one charger and three cables, two TB3 and a USB-C to lightening cable, and can charge and connect everything.

The elephant in the room being the 1DX II, silly but an important reason for me to want to upgrade to the MkIII.

But watch the cables, if you want the performance double check for the TB3 or TB4 icon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> Those are Thunderbolt 3 ports, and you can chain together external drives, for example and adapter a disply-port monitor to the end. But yeah, no hub for loads of USB C I’ve seen...











OWC Thunderbolt Hub for M1 and Intel Macs and Thunderbolt 4 (USB 4) PCs


Add three Thunderbolt 4 ports and one USB port to expand the connections of your M1 Mac with USB 4, Thunderbolt 3 equipped Intel Mac, or Thunderbolt 4 PC.




eshop.macsales.com


----------



## amorse (Mar 25, 2021)

I keep wondering about the different body than the R5 part of this rumour. Going back to older rumours on this body before the R5 was released, I wonder if some of the older rumours are back on the menu? 

This rumour from 2019 on the camera is the one I was thinking about - i.e. tilting viewfinder, bigger LCD (than EOS R), new style joystick, etc. The R5 seems like a pretty effective format, so I'm pretty curious on what they're changing.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> I feel your pain with the chip switch. I had the G4 and multiple G5 machines back in the day. Then apple switched to the Intel chipset. Looks like now they are back to their own chipset. I wouldn't count on anything in your computer being upgradable other than what your choices are in the box as you bought it. My G5s are all in the heap pile now. I switched to using MBPs because of the ability to travel with them. Mobility is just more important and yes when I'm at home it's connected up to 2 large monitors, wireless keyboard, external hard drives and the like. It does a fine job. My only point is the slow down I've experienced using larger R5 files vs the R files. So personally I couldn't imagine wanting to or needing to use 100mp photos. This is not only due to the limitations of the computer itself but also the transfer speeds of usb cables. While my MBP has 4 USC-C outlets, There are limitations with this technology currently (like not being able to have an external multi usb-c hub because usb-c can't be daisy chained) but no matter what folks are using for a computer there is a bottle neck at the transfer rate of files. In the end everyone has their own use cases and will justify what they need/want. For me 45mp images are large enough and with AI technology from companies like Topaz I would just find 100mp to be more of a burden. The R5 gets amazing detail out of the box and if I should ever find myself needing to go bigger, AI has arrived.


I have been using Macs since 1987, so I have been through several transitions. They all went surprisingly well, I thought. I am currently using a 2014 5K iMac. I got it with 32GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD. It chews through 4K video and Photoshop still seems zippy. About the only delays I experience are in accessing external hard drives and slow web sites. Apple will support Intel Macs for another 8 or 10 years. Software companies can compile their apps for both kinds of processors without a lot of trouble I gather. Plus, supposedly the Intel emulation on the M1 Macs runs really fast. At this point I have no idea of when I might feel the need to upgrade. I’m still using some old software for which there is no cheap substitute, so that is a factor. I still have my 2006 Mac Pro hooked up next to the iMac, so it comes into play on an occasional music project, such as encoding analog audio while I edit its past work on the iMac. A 100 MP camera is unlikely in my future, so that won’t influence my computing choices.

Also, I don’t have any need for a laptop. I’m retired, and the iPad is all I need when traveling. I will probably upgrade it before the Mac, once I get back to riding trains and planes. The Apple Card makes it way too easy to buy their stuff with a few clicks, with trade ins, 3% cash back, and months to pay with no interest, way too painless.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The best shifting stitches you can do with the Canon TS-E’s is a 4 image diagonal shift that increases the sensor area by an effective 251%, so 100mp would become a 250+ more image. I do this pretty regularly with my mere 20mp sensor...
> 
> Of course you can pan stitch any number of images but you don’t need a TS-E for that!


The TS-E lenses make the stitching work a lot better. When I rented the 24mm and then the 17mm, I did some shots that involved a straight shot and then shifts in every direction in 30° intervals. I might could have got away with fewer shots, but I think I used 17 for overlapping coverage. I might be wrong, but it seems like once I cropped to a square, it was about 82 MP. The computer had no problem with that.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> So is Thunderbolt a Mac protocol that happens to run over a USB-C port & wire? Or is it not a USB-C port & wire? I have a 15" 2016 MBP with 4 ports which I thought were USB-C, and macrunning mentioned his(her?) MBP with 4 ports whoose USB-C ports (I presume) can't be daisy-chained. So I'm confused, or I'm missing something?


No your right. They are called thunderbolt. https://www.pcmag.com/news/thunderbolt-3-vs-usb-c-whats-the-difference
I got the name wrong. Still haven't been able to find a multi port hub to extend how many thundbolt connections you can have.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> Those are Thunderbolt 3 ports, and you can chain together external drives, for example and adapter a disply-port monitor to the end. But yeah, no hub for loads of USB C I’ve seen...


Yes you are correct. My bad on the name. And yes I have multiple usb devices connected to the back of my monitors. But what doesn't exist are multi-port thunderbolt hubs. I've got 4 on my MBP but I've run out. I'd like to add additional SSD external hard drives as redundant backups/extra storage but can't at this point. Maybe I just have too many devices! lol, never


----------



## stevelee (Mar 25, 2021)

I thought about upgrading my iMac, but then I thought about all the cables, converters, dongles, etc., to deal with my FireWire and Thunderbolt 1 devices, and decided to wait. It wasn’t the money so much as the bother.


----------



## tcphoto (Mar 25, 2021)

Is anyone else tired of the megapixel misinformation? How about if we shift our attention to pixel density and less about the MP, hell cellphones claim to have the highest MP and they sell for a fraction of the price of an R5 and basic L lens.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, privatebydesign, for the links. So two TB3 ports should be just fine, and if you need more than 2 things (USB-C or TB3) connected, make sure there's a TB3 hub somewhere in at least one of the devices hooked up to the TB3 port with a TB3 wire.
> 
> "I feel much better now"


Yes, but you will not get more TB3 connections, just slower usb connections.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> OWC Thunderbolt Hub for M1 and Intel Macs and Thunderbolt 4 (USB 4) PCs
> 
> 
> Add three Thunderbolt 4 ports and one USB port to expand the connections of your M1 Mac with USB 4, Thunderbolt 3 equipped Intel Mac, or Thunderbolt 4 PC.
> ...


Oh haven't seen this yet! Nice. Gonna have to read up on it today. Haha, love how they state "(4) THUNDERBOLT (USB-C) + (1) USB-A". So basically USB-C and Thunderbolt are the same. I don't understand why there are not more of these out in the market place. 
Ouch! Didn't plan on upgrading to Big Sir:
"The OWC Thunderbolt Hub works with any Mac with an available Thunderbolt 3 port running macOS 11.1 Big Sur"


----------



## cayenne (Mar 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I jumped in with TB3 three years ago and haven’t looked back. I have a 4 port MBP and on my main desk I have a dock with large monitor, card readers, speakers, wired 10GbE. NAS, and a couple of external HDD’s along with charging the MBP all take just one connection! I have an external SSD that I take away with me that plugs direct into the MBP or my iPad (that has USB-C/TB3 port), as do my travel card reader, GoPro, and DJI drone. The only device I now have that is not simply USB-C/TB3 is my phone.
> 
> But watch the cables, if you want the performance double check for the TB3 or TB4 icon.


Hmm...I may have learned something.

I knew about TB3 being faster and a different protocol, and that it had the same connector as USBC, but I had never heard that there were TB3 specific cables vs USBC cables....
I'll have to look into this. 

Thanks for the info,
C


----------



## AJ (Mar 25, 2021)

Hmm... I was expecting this camera earlier, before R1. I think some people will be disappointed at having to wait another year.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 25, 2021)

What would be the use of such a high mp camera?
I can think of a few:

Printing life size portraits of elephants to fine detail.
Life size landscape prints.
Spending quality time at the computer downloading files.
Spending quality time with the family shopping for additional external drives to store the pictures I take but never process.
Learning patience as I process my pictures on my old computer.
But the main reason is so I can say my camera has more mp than yours.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Yes, but you will not get more TB3 connections, just slower usb connections.


No, you will get more TB3 connections, which can be used for TB3 or USB-3 use.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Oh haven't seen this yet! Nice. Gonna have to read up on it today. Haha, love how they state "(4) THUNDERBOLT (USB-C) + (1) USB-A". So basically USB-C and Thunderbolt are the same. I don't understand why there are not more of these out in the market place.
> Ouch! Didn't plan on upgrading to Big Sir:
> "The OWC Thunderbolt Hub works with any Mac with an available Thunderbolt 3 port running macOS 11.1 Big Sur"


I think you might have mis-interpreted their statement ""(4) THUNDERBOLT (USB-C)...". 
It means 4 (faster)TB3 ports, which can also be used for slower USB-C purposes.


----------



## Stuart (Mar 25, 2021)

So 100+MP with curved sensor and dedicated lenses for landscapes with super sharp edges. smaller pixel sites mean poorer ISO, but we're on a tripod. 
In the studio super product shots with controlled light sources, again with sharpness to the edge. Pure studio bodies can be larger for more processing grunt. 
Perhaps the product split is along these lines - curved sensor FF MF challengers, and FF swiss army knife models like the R5/6 to carry anywhere.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 25, 2021)

Lenses are designed to project a flat image. Of course, it can't be perfectly flat, but they can come close by throwing more elements into the lens.

Put in a curved sensor and all of that extra design becomes a detriment. Are there going to be lenses coming out that _don't_ correct a curved focal surface to a plane, so that this sensor will work properly? If so how long will it take before every lens someone might want comes in a curved version? How much kvetching will there be over how slow they come out?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Hmm...I may have learned something.
> 
> I knew about TB3 being faster and a different protocol, and that it had the same connector as USBC, but I had never heard that there were TB3 specific cables vs USBC cables....
> I'll have to look into this.
> ...


Yes good quality TB 3/4 cables are super important if you are running TB3/4 devices. All the basic USB-C cables will not deliver a fraction the performance of TB. The TB cables are expensive Nd short, but they do deliver, I run Akitio cables that have now been bought out by OWC/MacSales. 

The reason I went with Akitio a few years back was because of their TB3 dock. It has CFast 2.0 and SD card readers along with 10GbE port, two TB3 ports, eSATA etc etc all of which I have and need.









OWC Thunderbolt Pro Dock - 10-Port Workflow Solution


Designed specifically for pro video, audio, and photography workflows that require the ultimate combination of the fastest docking connections available.




eshop.macsales.com


----------



## Stuart (Mar 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Lenses are designed to project a flat image. Of course, it can't be perfectly flat, but they can come close by throwing more elements into the lens.
> 
> Put in a curved sensor and all of that extra design becomes a detriment. Are there going to be lenses coming out that _don't_ correct a curved focal surface to a plane, so that this sensor will work properly? If so how long will it take before every lens someone might want comes in a curved version? How much kvetching will there be over how slow they come out?


Hi Steve - I was wondering id the recent curved lens rumours was joined to this - https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-fast-prime-lenses-for-curved-image-sensors/ 
Patent: Fast prime lenses for curved image sensors​


----------



## Stuart (Mar 25, 2021)

Undoubtably this would be expensive - but if you are taking on the MF market.....


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not entirely clear if it's CA at the plane of focus or bokeh CA that's the issue. With that said...
> 
> Since I tend to shoot this lens at night or in less contrasty situations (i.e. indoors) I just walked outside to try and recreate this. Power line against blue sky had virtually no CA at the plane of focus. Power line against a bright white cloud (full sun illuminating at an angle to the cloud) had some. But I've seen worse from other lenses in less stressful conditions, and it was easily corrected in PS.
> 
> ...


Plane of focus, oof areas, everything. If the photo is a little overexposed, it becomes useless. Purple on anything white, lips, cheeks, etc. However, it’s also just a $399 lens.


----------



## Dustyj (Mar 25, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> Is there a lack of lenses I wasn't aware of? You state that like it's the M series.


Small Wide angle primes would be a good start.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 25, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I think you might have mis-interpreted their statement ""(4) THUNDERBOLT (USB-C)...".
> It means 4 (faster)TB3 ports, which can also be used for slower USB-C purposes.


Yes sir. Still stand by my original statement, at this time you cannot expand your thunderbolt 3/usb-c connections on the MacBook Pro. This product doesn't appear to be launching until May. This probably doesn't impact most folks I guess. I've got too many peripheral devices!


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 25, 2021)

canonnews said:


> the 32.5MP APS-C sensors scale to 82MP.. and they are just fine. the 5Ds and 5DsR use entirely different sensor technology, and are at least 2 generations old in terms of Canon sensor technology from where we are now.


The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible. (even Nikon at that time is better than Canon) Same game if I want to judge the sensor on this camera I would want to compare with the best FF in the market which is EOS R5 (not even the latest Alpha 1 could match, though they are very very close)


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Yes sir. Still stand by my original statement, at this time you cannot expand your thunderbolt 3/usb-c connections on the MacBook Pro. This product doesn't appear to be launching until May. This probably doesn't impact most folks I guess. I've got too many peripheral devices!


No the first two batches already sold out, the next batch is available in May. It was launched a while ago, I didn’t need the expansion then because I daisychain all the stuff I need through the dock I linked, I also have 4 TB3 ports anyway.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 26, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Yes sir. Still stand by my original statement, at this time you cannot expand your thunderbolt 3/usb-c connections on the MacBook Pro. This product doesn't appear to be launching until May. This probably doesn't impact most folks I guess. I've got too many peripheral devices!


To be fair, the website says that the first and second production runs have sold out and the third is scheduled in May.... so it has launched and has found a market niche.
"Demand for the world's first Thunderbolt 'port expander' has been incredible! The first and second production runs have sold out. Pre-order today to claim your Hub from the next run scheduled to ship in May + FREE Shipping!"


----------



## macrunning (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No the first two batches already sold out, the next batch is available in May. It was launched a while ago, I didn’t need the expansion then because I daisychain all the stuff I need through the dock I linked, I also have 4 TB3 ports anyway.





David - Sydney said:


> To be fair, the website says that the first and second production runs have sold out and the third is scheduled in May.... so it has launched and has found a market niche.
> "Demand for the world's first Thunderbolt 'port expander' has been incredible! The first and second production runs have sold out. Pre-order today to claim your Hub from the next run scheduled to ship in May + FREE Shipping!"


The good news is, now I know something is available so I'm putting in my order! 
Here's a link to a review on YouTube I though was good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

amorse said:


> Well, as someone who is firmly in the target market and has been waiting for a higher MP camera I'm pretty excited to see how this thing performs. Personally, I was more than happy with the reported 80MP, but I'd be just as happy to look at 100MP.
> 
> My biggest concern with such high pixel density is determining the effective aperture where the benefits of such high resolution start to really demand focus stacking (or a tilt shift lens, I guess) to maximize quality for landscape photography. Regardless, it sounds like a really interesting tool, albeit with some additional considerations to put all those MPs to their full use!


Serious question, what are you outputting that requires 80-100mp? I’m seriously interested in peoples use case for this type of camera.

If it’s prints what size and how many are you doing a year, if it’s wildlife for cropping what focal length do you normally use, that kind of thing.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 26, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible. (even Nikon at that time is better than Canon)



Nikon pretty much set the bar for base ISO DR with the D800, with later Sony bodies either matching it or falling a bit behind. The A7s bodies have all been slightly behind, with the A7s III being the furthest behind. Using DPReview's Exposure Latitude tool as a reference, IQ wise a +4ev push on a 5DsR is about the same as +4.66ev on the A7s III, or +6ev on a D800/810/D850. The R5 competes at +6ev, and the R6 seems a touch worse at +5ev. But I think it's still fair to say the R6 is about 1ev better than a 5DsR. (All at the same view size of course.)

This lines up pretty closely with what one would expect looking at Photons to Photos graphs.

Again, I would predict nothing revolutionary. No one seems able to break 15ev total DR using DxO's standard, or 12ev using PtP's standard. But Canon's 100mp sensor is not going to be worse than an R6 on DR, and probably close or equal to an R5.

*Edit:* some MF sensors do break 12ev at PtP. I do not believe any 35mm sensors do.


----------



## amorse (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Serious question, what are you outputting that requires 80-100mp? I’m seriously interested in peoples use case for this type of camera.
> 
> If it’s prints what size and how many are you doing a year, if it’s wildlife for cropping what focal length do you normally use, that kind of thing.


I'm primarily a hobby landscape photographer and the vast majority of my use is for personal consumption, with limited sales of calendars, prints, and the odd paid job. My desire for more resolution is linked to me really liking (and wanting to produce) high detail metal prints to be viewed from close. 

I often perform a bit of cropping for the sake of composition, but not usually anything crazy. It's not uncommon for me to sacrifice maybe 30% of the resolution depending on the situation. I'm currently shooting with a 5D IV and finding typical crops are not providing sufficient resolution for 20x30 inch metal prints (at the distance they're viewed from) which is a pretty common size for me. An R5 is likely plenty for that size, but I've got a few panoramas at 6 feet long which I absolutely love. Those are often north of 90mp. 

My intent with a camera like this is to produce high detailed prints at maybe ~48 inches long by 38 wide, again, to be viewed from close (i.e. in a hallway). 100 is definitely more than I need and even 80 is likely high, but I could personally justify more than 45. I don't need high burst rates or any video really, so the biggest gap I currently have in my equipment is resolution (and autofocus for those odd paid jobs to be fair).

With all that said, my biggest concern with that much resolution is diffraction limited aperture. I'd anticipate being diffraction limited at most apertures I'd be shooting at, so I'm not sure that I'd get the full resolution I'd be after all the time anyway. I'm in no rush to buy so I'm content to wait until it's available and judge for myself or take it out as a rental and see if it suits my needs as intended.


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes good quality TB 3/4 cables are super important if you are running TB3/4 devices. All the basic USB-C cables will not deliver a fraction the performance of TB. The TB cables are expensive Nd short, but they do deliver, I run Akitio cables that have now been bought out by OWC/MacSales.
> 
> The reason I went with Akitio a few years back was because of their TB3 dock. It has CFast 2.0 and SD card readers along with 10GbE port, two TB3 ports, eSATA etc etc all of which I have and need.
> 
> ...


Thank you Private!


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Nikon pretty much set the bar for base ISO DR with the D800, with later Sony bodies either matching it or falling a bit behind. The A7s bodies have all been slightly behind, with the A7s III being the furthest behind. Using DPReview's Exposure Latitude tool as a reference, IQ wise a +4ev push on a 5DsR is about the same as +4.66ev on the A7s III, or +6ev on a D800/810/D850. The R5 competes at +6ev, and the R6 seems a touch worse at +5ev. But I think it's still fair to say the R6 is about 1ev better than a 5DsR. (All at the same view size of course.)
> 
> This lines up pretty closely with what one would expect looking at Photons to Photos graphs.
> 
> ...


The smaller MF (44x33) is around 1EV better (i.e. GFX100). If you go up to Phase One IQ4 (53x40) is another 1EV higher. But they are difference beasts. 15EV is just a limit only for FF.


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 26, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm primarily a hobby landscape photographer and the vast majority of my use is for personal consumption, with limited sales of calendars, prints, and the odd paid job. My desire for more resolution is linked to me really liking (and wanting to produce) high detail metal prints to be viewed from close.
> 
> I often perform a bit of cropping for the sake of composition, but not usually anything crazy. It's not uncommon for me to sacrifice maybe 30% of the resolution depending on the situation. I'm currently shooting with a 5D IV and finding typical crops are not providing sufficient resolution for 20x30 inch metal prints (at the distance they're viewed from) which is a pretty common size for me. An R5 is likely plenty for that size, but I've got a few panoramas at 6 feet long which I absolutely love. Those are often north of 90mp.
> 
> ...


MF camera shooter crop very often. So the idea is to take a wider shot and handle the framing in post-processing. That is how to use big pixel sensor.

For diffraction I was reading that mirrorless sensor is closer to the lens so it is not as bad as DSLR. If they drop that AA filter in front of sensor I think it shouldn't be too bad. This is optics not sensor design so at the end of day we are bound by geometry not sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm primarily a hobby landscape photographer and the vast majority of my use is for personal consumption, with limited sales of calendars, prints, and the odd paid job. My desire for more resolution is linked to me really liking (and wanting to produce) high detail metal prints to be viewed from close.
> 
> I often perform a bit of cropping for the sake of composition, but not usually anything crazy. It's not uncommon for me to sacrifice maybe 30% of the resolution depending on the situation. I'm currently shooting with a 5D IV and finding typical crops are not providing sufficient resolution for 20x30 inch metal prints (at the distance they're viewed from) which is a pretty common size for me. An R5 is likely plenty for that size, but I've got a few panoramas at 6 feet long which I absolutely love. Those are often north of 90mp.
> 
> ...


It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.

But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display. 


Why was it amazing? Because it was utter crap, it had obviously been under exposed and lifted in post when shot with a 5D II era sensor and resolution, the noise was horrific and the shadows a rainbow expanse of colored puke/pixels. Yet the customers, and I browsed long enough to confirm the interest myself, absolutely loved it! 

It was a sad day for me  but it did make me realize the difference between my expectations of myself and my work, and my customers. For instance I use TS-E lenses for real estate, I could easily use my 11-24 and crop and get exactly the same image, but that isn’t who I am. But delivering 100mp base images isn’t something I see as close to being asked for or needed by any but the very top end and most discerning of clients, and I have had exhibition billboards, life sized displays, posters, wallpapers etc made quite happily from my images.

But again, thanks for the genuine reply, I appreciate it.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible.


Earlier you stated that you were a 5DSr user for six years. If that's how you felt about the sensor why on earth did you use one for that length of time then ?


----------



## Fischer (Mar 26, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> What would be the use of such a high mp camera?
> I can think of a few:
> 
> Printing life size portraits of elephants to fine detail.
> ...


Ahhh, the same old song we get every time MPIX increases. Curiously - but predictably - each and every high MPIX camera critic eventually ends up buying a camera with the same useless high MPIX count - or even higher. I wonder why?


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 26, 2021)

Fischer said:


> 100 MPIX sounds great. 120 MPIX would be perfect. Less would hardly be enough compared to the 5DS/R. Was really worried that they would settle for 75 MPIX.
> 
> Regardless this sounds like the camera I have been hoping and holding out for since Canon announced their entry into the mirrorless market. One Preorder here Canon - thank you!


I would expect at least the same pixel density as the 90D, if not much higher. the 90D is excellent image quality.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2021)

Fischer said:


> ......each and every high MPIX camera critic eventually ends up buying a camera with the same useless high MPIX count - or even higher. I wonder why?


Well probably because eventually there is nothing left for them to buy other than high mp ! However I think that’s going to change as mp becomes extreme, and we’ll see lower mp versions of cameras that are still featured like the high end models, maybe as we are seeing with the R6 & R5. Personally as someone who has two 5DSs I’m really missing a good up to date 20mp body.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 26, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible. (even Nikon at that time is better than Canon) Same game if I want to judge the sensor on this camera I would want to compare with the best FF in the market which is EOS R5 (not even the latest Alpha 1 could match, though they are very very close)


why on earth would you compare two cameras meant for different markets (unless you meant A7R II).

even then, the comparison is meaningless. Canon has quickly advanced their sensors since that point in time, which was the point of what I stated. a new 100mp+ camera from Canon right now would be two or arguably up to three generations of sensors better than the 5Ds/R .. so it's pointless trying to equate this back to that camera.

as an example, compare the R5 to any Sony - the difference is slight, it wasn't the case back in the 5DsR time.


----------



## amorse (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.
> 
> But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.
> 
> ...


Happy to provide my use case, and I agree on client standards vs photographer standards. I've seen over and over again that many popular images to non-photographers are full of visible errors or very low quality - especially with really obvious composites presented as real scenes. I think people who shoot for their own personal use are often incredibly discerning on what does and does not work for them, and I'd put myself in that category.

I did consider the 100s, and while I'm sure it's a great system, I'm most concerned about lens selection. I've really been enjoying longer focal length landscape photography from others, and the GFX system doesn't really have anything comparable to say a 100-400. We'll see on that front. Again, I'm not really in a rush to make decisions since this doesn't put food on my table.

And P.S. - thanks for the advice a while back on home printers. On your comments I did end up picking up a pixma pro-200 and it's producing some wonderful images out of my 5D IV. It's been a lot of fun to put out smaller prints that I would likely never had printed otherwise - some images are much better appreciated in print than on a screen!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.

Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera? 

There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?


----------



## amorse (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.
> 
> Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?
> 
> There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?


Not that I wouldn't consider "because I'd like it" a suitable reason for a company to produce a product and for a consumer to buy it, but in my use case I'd more liken my response to "because what I'm trying to create will be better served by that product than by other current offerings". 

At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd suggest that there is a difference between implying "there is an insignificant commercial use case for x camera" and "there is no solid use case for x camera". I think one of those comments has more merit than the other. As you said, horses for courses.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 26, 2021)

I t


privatebydesign said:


> And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.
> 
> Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?
> 
> There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?


I take maybe 30000 portraits a year in portrait mode and often need to make them into landscape mode - loosing a little more than half the pixels. Commercials and fashion mags always ask for largest files possible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

amorse said:


> Not that I wouldn't consider "because I'd like it" a suitable reason for a company to produce a product and for a consumer to buy it, but in my use case I'd more liken my response to "because what I'm trying to create will be better served by that product than by other current offerings".
> 
> At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd suggest that there is a difference between implying "there is an insignificant commercial use case for x camera" and "there is no solid use case for x camera". I think one of those comments has more merit than the other. As you said, horses for courses.


Oh no I absolutely agree with you, I am not disparaging you’re earlier reply, I greatly respect it. Nobody needs any ‘justification’ over and above because I want it. I’m just trying to gauge what technical requirement is met by it.

I sell 24” x 36” portraits of horses, they are high contrast and high detail and the truth is the only similar shooters use medium format and charge a lot more than me! But they really do benefit from high detail and high mp’s, but the truth is I don’t need anything close to 100mp to keep my customers happy, the content drives the sales not the technical merits of the images.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I t
> 
> I take maybe 30000 portraits a year in potrait mode and ofren need to make them into landscape mode - loosing a little more than half the pixels. Commercials and fashoin mags always ask for largest files possible.


But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.



To the average schmoe, the one figure of merit for a camera is the megapixel count. (It wasn't all that long ago when I was there, and I probably still show signs of it--it's not the sole figure of merit for me but it's a very important one.)

And they'll quickly filter pictures the same way. It can lead to false positives (deemed good enough, when it isn't) and negatives.

I've seen plenty of stuff online that is _clearly_ blown up too much, 150K JPG files displayed 1500 pixels wide and the like. That sort of thing can confirm the MP prejudice.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 26, 2021)

Chig said:


> Be interesting if Canon use a cropped version of this sensor in the R7 which would be about 40mp as a crop sensor


I’d expect the R7 sensor to be a revised/updated version of the 32.5MP sensor in the 90D, with faster readout, lower noise, and enter DR, though the 90D is already pretty good IQ.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 26, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


My wallet is waiting . . . . . . .


----------



## landscaper (Mar 26, 2021)

Not Sure I Can Hold Off till 2022
For Canon R5s or RS Hi Res Body 

Seven years between High Resolution Upgrades is Way way way too Long 
(5dsr shipped in Spring 2015)

Sony on 24+ Month upgrade cycle on their Bodies 

I'm sure Sony - Fuji Already Have a 
150 Megapixel GFX Sensor under Development 

The Fuji GFX 100s Beckons to Me

Dense and Well Designed DSLR Sized Body - 
I only give up Speed and Video Specs over R5 class body.
I shoot my Landscapes Slowly at iso 100 anyway 

Many of my Canon EF Lenses will 
Adapt quite Nicely to GFX with the New TechArt Eos to GFX Adapter

Tse 24mm
Tse 50mm
100 Macro 

I Hope Canon can pull this High Resolution Body off Sooner 
Otherwise I'm Afraid its Fuji GFX in my Future


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.
> 
> But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.
> 
> ...


I often find myself really unhappy with images that my clients absolutely love. It’s important to remember that the vast majority of paying clients are not technical enough to discern what we see as errors. They have the benefit of being able to enjoy an image for what it is, and not sit there and pick it apart from a technical perspective. As photographers, there is such a thing as good enough, and we need to remember that we don’t decide good enough if there is a paying customer. They do.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.


I've had that discussion already. Not worth it. Clients should to be happy - rational or not (and sometimes it really matters, such as if they only want to show the shoes or a bag etc).


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Serious question, what are you outputting that requires 80-100mp? I’m seriously interested in peoples use case for this type of camera.
> 
> If it’s prints what size and how many are you doing a year, if it’s wildlife for cropping what focal length do you normally use, that kind of thing.



5Ds/sR file at 48", with no cropping, is only 180 ppi. That's actually still pretty good, but short of saturating what a modern photo ink jet can put to paper. I think anyone doing 48" or larger prints would benefit. Whether or not it's needed or requested by the viewer/buyer/client is a separate question.


----------



## Refraction (Mar 26, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.


The ability to crop and reframe an image is one of the reasons I have 3 x R5's. Coupled with the RF glass, it changes the way I deliver images from pre Eos R days.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> 5Ds/sR file at 48", with no cropping, is only 180 ppi. That's actually still pretty good, but short of saturating what a modern photo ink jet can put to paper. I think anyone doing 48" or larger prints would benefit. Whether or not it's needed or requested by the viewer/buyer/client is a separate question.


And my point was if you are regularly printing to 48” other camera systems are already better suited to that than a 100mp 135 format. But how many of us are regularly printing to 48”? I suspect a lot fewer than R5s’s will be sold!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> 5Ds/sR file at 48", with no cropping, is only 180 ppi. That's actually still pretty good, but short of saturating what a modern photo ink jet can put to paper. I think anyone doing 48" or larger prints would benefit. Whether or not it's needed or requested by the viewer/buyer/client is a separate question.


I wonder if you’d really see much difference between the 50mp interpolated up with the latest software compared with a 100mp camera at normal viewing distances given that you'd need about 140mp to achieve 48" long side @ 300 dpi anyway. To me the angle of diminishing returns is beginning to get pretty steep.


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 26, 2021)

Just speaking personally, I have no interest in a 100 MP camera. One reason is due to some very rough and general comparisons I made a couple years ago between my R in crop mode (less than 12 MP) and my M5 (24 MP). Shooting hand held and taking pics of real life objects (not test charts). In my first comparison, I was using an old Canon EF 100-300mm L lens. There was no noticeable difference in my shots between the two cameras. Some of my shots had more resolution with one or the other, most were essentially the same. It occurred to me that the most important factor was not the sensor MPS, but on how still I was holding the camera. Later I tried the same comparison, but with the Canon EF 70-300mm L. In this case, the 24 MP sensor did perform a slight bit better, but I needed to pixel peep at 80-100% to see any difference. This sort of confirmed what some reviewers said when Sony (if I remember correctly) released the A7 (24 MP) and A7R (36 MP). Some reviewers said that hand held, they could not see a difference in resolution between the two cameras - they needed a tripod to get the benifit of the extra MPs. 

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons of shooting hand held with this new 100 MP camera and the 45 MP R5. Will there actually be any noticeable difference? Until I see that type of comparison, I will be skeptical that the 100 MPs isn't more of a marketing gimmick than a real noticeable jump in real world shooting resolution. I hope, quite frankly, that my skepticism will be proved wrong.


----------



## spider-mario (Mar 26, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> For diffraction I was reading that mirrorless sensor is closer to the lens so it is not as bad as DSLR.


It makes no difference.



MarinnaCole said:


> If they drop that AA filter in front of sensor I think it shouldn't be too bad.


As far as I am concerned, I hope they keep the AA filter. I despise aliasing.


----------



## Skux (Mar 26, 2021)

Nice, I can take all my photos at 24mm and just crop in lol


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And my point was if you are regularly printing to 48” other camera systems are already better suited to that than a 100mp 135 format. But how many of us are regularly printing to 48”? I suspect a lot fewer than R5s’s will be sold!



Define "better suited." 35mm has the most glass, tech, and R&D investment. A 645 (or crop 645) sensor will always have a noise and sharpness advantage over 35mm, assuming similar tech in the sensor stack and equal lenses. But I can easily see someone who needs 80-100mp deciding to go 35mm instead of MF because of the costs, lenses, and tech (stuff like top of the line AF). It happened with the D800 and 5Ds/sR.


----------



## spider-mario (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> In theory pixel size should be directly related to dynamic range because of full well capacity, and lower density sensors should have a distinct advantage.


True at the pixel level, but at a fixed spatial scale, it tends to be the opposite because as pixels shrink, their input-referred read noise at base ISO tends to shrink faster than (the square root of) the number of pixels from which to add the read noise grows. (At high ISO, it tends to be the opposite.)

For example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Sony ILCE-7M3_14,Sony ILCE-7RM4_14

The α7 III has a saturation capacity of 93 703 e⁻ per pixel at base ISO, and the α7R IV “only” 34 452 e⁻, but since it has 2.5× as many pixels, that’s 86 842 e⁻ in the area of an α7 III pixel, so just 0.1 stops below the α7 III. So the upper bound is practically the same. But if we look at the lower bound, the α7R IV has 2.9 e⁻ of read noise instead of 6.4 e⁻. Even taking into account that the read noise is added in quadrature from 2.5× as many pixels, that’s still only 4.6 e⁻ in the area corresponding to an α7 III pixel, an advantage of ~0.45 stops. So, according to the measurements from PhotonsToPhotos, the α7R IV ends up with a ~1/3-stop advantage in DR over the α7 III at base ISO.

Not sure exactly why the DxOMark results don’t quite match this (the α7R IV also has an advantage there but it’s smaller). Normalizing the PhotonsToPhotos data to 8MP like DxOMark does, we end up with 14.64 and 15 stops of DR respectively, instead of the 14.7 and 14.8 found by DxOMark.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Define "better suited." 35mm has the most glass, tech, and R&D investment. A 645 (or crop 645) sensor will always have a noise and sharpness advantage over 35mm, assuming similar tech in the sensor stack and equal lenses. But I can easily see someone who needs 80-100mp deciding to go 35mm instead of MF because of the costs, lenses, and tech (stuff like top of the line AF). It happened with the D800 and 5Ds/sR.


Image quality. Sensor area isn’t beaten by technology in similar ages of sensor. Throw in MF 16bit capture and there are real IQ benefits for larger sensor users printing large.

Considering the prices even modest large format prints are sold for the price of MF gear for 48” print specialists seems very doable, for goodness sake a GFX100s is $2,000 more than an R5, and an R5s will be even closer.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Image quality. Sensor area isn’t beaten by technology in similar ages of sensor. Throw in MF 16bit capture and there are real IQ benefits for larger sensor users printing large.



When Chris Niccolls compared the 5DsR + Otus lens to a Pentax 645z the 5DsR was actually sharper and equally detailed. All factors being equal the 645z should be sharper, but when lens R&D is poured into 35mm things aren't always equal. The 645z had better base ISO DR (expected given Canon's ADC tech at the time) and high ISO (expected, larger chip). But if you're not regularly pushing into those areas of the imaging envelope, then there's no practical IQ advantage. Someone who needs 100mp could look at their work and decide they would rather have the 35mm lens options and tech like Canon's DPAF.

At some point you hit various limits on lens MTF curves and pixel level circuitry which mean for higher IQ you have to go to a larger format. But I think that's past 100mp for a 35mm sized chip. I don't think there would be much to gain with, say, a 150mp or 200mp 35mm chip. But through 100mp there are still gains to be made.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> When Chris Niccolls compared the 5DsR + Otus lens to a Pentax 645z the 5DsR was actually sharper and equally detailed. All factors being equal the 645z should be sharper, but when lens R&D is poured into 35mm things aren't always equal. The 645z had better base ISO DR (expected given Canon's ADC tech at the time) and high ISO (expected, larger chip). But if you're not regularly pushing into those areas of the imaging envelope, then there's no practical IQ advantage. Someone who needs 100mp could look at their work and decide they would rather have the 35mm lens options and tech like Canon's DPAF.
> 
> At some point you hit various limits on lens MTF curves and pixel level circuitry which mean for higher IQ you have to go to a larger format. But I think that's past 100mp for a 35mm sized chip. I don't think there would be much to gain with, say, a 150mp or 200mp 35mm chip. But through 100mp there are still gains to be made.


This is just arguing for arguing sake. You say lens selection and quality is better in 135 and has the added benefit of better AF. Then list a range four highest end manual focus only lenses that cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each.

The very small number of people printing regularly at 48” and above know well enough the advantages a system with a larger sensor brings to the table. Indeed several that I know of that do specialize in big prints are already stitching their medium format images.

As to your final paragraph, we might be approaching agreement in that if you want to get ‘better’ you have to go bigger. We just disagree on the tipping point of that move.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> This is just arguing for arguing sake.



No, it's the decision process some photographers will go through.



privatebydesign said:


> You say lens selection and quality is better in 135 and has the added benefit of better AF. Then list a range four highest end manual focus only lenses that cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each.



The results would have been similar with a number of lenses, they just happened to use that one in their comparison. 

The point isn't that 35mm is just as good in all situations. The point is that some people will look at how good it is and decide they want to be in the R system. Others will stick with or move to MF. It's not a clear cut answer for everyone when IQ is as close as it is between a 35mm and MF sensor _with the same sampling frequency._



privatebydesign said:


> The very small number of people printing regularly at 48” and above know well enough the advantages a system with a larger sensor brings to the table. Indeed several that I know of that do specialize in big prints are already stitching their medium format images.



And I know people who migrated from MF to 35mm when the higher resolution sensors hit. Canon is building the camera because the market is there. It's a good bet Sony is doing something similar.


----------



## pape2 (Mar 27, 2021)

I bet this is just another R1 rumour.
Making 80mpixel quad bayer sensor doesnt make sense. 100mp is psychologallly lot more impressing number.
If they want impress someone with R1


----------



## JohnC (Mar 27, 2021)

I haven’t personally printed any of my images over 30 inches. I’ve done that with 20mp and the results look great to me.

Having said that, if they come out with 100mp I’m almost assuredly getting it assuming it doesn’t come with some huge compromise. Can’t wait. Love the R5 and if this 100 happens I’ll put a grip on it and call it my action cam.


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 27, 2021)

canonnews said:


> why on earth would you compare two cameras meant for different markets (unless you meant A7R II).
> 
> even then, the comparison is meaningless. Canon has quickly advanced their sensors since that point in time, which was the point of what I stated. a new 100mp+ camera from Canon right now would be two or arguably up to three generations of sensors better than the 5Ds/R .. so it's pointless trying to equate this back to that camera.
> 
> as an example, compare the R5 to any Sony - the difference is slight, it wasn't the case back in the 5DsR time.


I did meant A7R II.
The comparison is straight to the point - two cameras sold in the same time to the market to the same group of people. and Nope Canon did not catch up fast. Their DSLR sensor was lagging by more than one generation for 3-4 years until EOS system reaches the market. It is long enough that I was seriously evaluating possibility to switch side. There were real doubt that Canon will never be serious about mirrorless as the first few crop models also failed miserably


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Canon is building the camera because the market is there. It's a good bet Sony is doing something similar.


Yes I know the market is probably there, my point was that as far as I can see the market is being driven by photographers personal desires not a technical requirement necessary for customer work (except for possibly a tiny fraction of a very small niche).

Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.


----------



## dilbert (Mar 27, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder if you’d really see much difference between the 50mp interpolated up with the latest software compared with a 100mp camera at normal viewing distances given that you'd need about 140mp to achieve 48" long side @ 300 dpi anyway. To me the angle of diminishing returns is beginning to get pretty steep.



Or even photoshop 2* resolution feature on a 24MP picture vs 100MP picture.


----------



## dilbert (Mar 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.



Might be the wrong forum - you might need to ask somewhere that people with Phase one backs post...

... or maybe this rumor is just Canon's way of doing market research on whether or not people will buy it (I won't as it'll be too hard to get good results with hand held photography.)


----------



## Joules (Mar 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes I know the market is probably there, my point was that as far as I can see the market is being driven by photographers personal desires not a technical requirement necessary for customer work (except for possibly a tiny fraction of a very small niche).
> 
> Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.


I haven't read all posts here but I saw you acknowledge that any work that requires heavy cropping benefits from such a sensor. In that post, you also dismissed that, since a crop body would suite that use case even better. But I don't think that captures the whole picture. If you do reach limited photography as well as regular one, getting one body that performs well in both instead of two specialized ones may be worth it. 

With either electronic shutters getting even faster (Like in the Sony A1) or global shutters emerging, the only advantage of a crop body becomes sensor price (+ size and weight, if Canon develops a special crop RF lens lineup). With the speed of current electronic shutters from Canon, FPS would remain an advantage. But I think it is fair to assume that will faint in the future.

So a FF body with 2.56 times the resolution of a crop body is a straight superset of it. For it to make sense to buy a regular FF body and the crop body, the high resolution camera must cost more than the sum of the two. So the premium you pay for the high resolution has to be greater than the cost of a whole crop camera for it to make sense to get two bodies, instead of one to do it all.

As to moving to a larger sensor format in the pursuit for higher resolution, one may already have an EF or RF lens collection, that's holding you back. And don't the typical drawbacks like cost and lesser technology still apply to these bodies? 

I think with most specs you will not find an actual need for them anymore, with the exception of few very special use cases. But there's a desire for more MP, more FPS, more video resolution, etc. Having and not needing something is better than needing and not having it.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.



You seemed to dismiss my answer that any photographer making 40/48/60" and larger prints might want to shoot a 35mm system, if there was a 35mm sensor with a high enough resolution to meet their needs (in a single frame). It's a niche, but those people exist.

Personally I can't imagine asking for more than 100mp from a 35mm sized sensor. The MP race slowed down considerably in the 2010's and I think we're near the point where it ends. But if Canon delivers an 80-100mp R body, I will be looking to buy it based on how well it performs on standard tests. Judging from 90D/M6 mark II image quality (similar pixel densities), there's one more leap left to make in the MP race.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 27, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Or even photoshop 2* resolution feature on a 24MP picture vs 100MP picture.



For all the press hype I have to agree with Tony Northrup: it doesn't seem any better than Preserve Details 2.0. Maybe I just haven't thrown the right RAW file at it yet.


----------



## Chig (Mar 27, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I’d expect the R7 sensor to be a revised/updated version of the 32.5MP sensor in the 90D, with faster readout, lower noise, and enter DR, though the 90D is already pretty good IQ.


Yes , that's probably what Canon will do but hoping they'll go that bit further and use their latest sensor technology rather rehashing existing sensors
However if they just fit the 90D sensor in an R6 body it'll certainly be a great camera anyway and I'll buy one for sure


----------



## Fischer (Mar 27, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Well probably because eventually there is nothing left for them to buy other than high mp ! However I think that’s going to change as mp becomes extreme, and we’ll see lower mp versions of cameras that are still featured like the high end models, maybe as we are seeing with the R6 & R5. Personally as someone who has two 5DSs I’m really missing a good up to date 20mp body.


R6 is excellent, if you like good colors. Its the best Canon sensor for noise and colors as far as I can tell - I use my own color profile which of course also helps.


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 27, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I did meant A7R II.
> The comparison is straight to the point - two cameras sold in the same time to the market to the same group of people. and Nope Canon did not catch up fast. Their DSLR sensor was lagging by more than one generation for 3-4 years until EOS system reaches the market. It is long enough that I was seriously evaluating possibility to switch side. There were real doubt that Canon will never be serious about mirrorless as the first few crop models also failed miserably


This has been answered before, but I don't think you got it. The cameras you were comparing (Sony and Canon) used a different sensor architecture, where Canon was lagging behind. With the 5D IV and all of their other cameras since (with the exception of the 6D II and the RD) they switched to on-sensor ADC technology. As soon as they switched to the new architecture, they essentially caught up. So, yes, it was fast and has continued to today.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> This has been answered before, but I don't think you got it. The cameras you were comparing (Sony and Canon) used a different sensor architecture, where Canon was lagging behind.


Even so, to say that the 5DS/r has "no sensor performance" is a pretty asinine statement, unless of course English is not the poster's first language, and what he/she meant to say was "no sensor performance for me as I habitually and unnecessarily underexpose by at least two stops every time".


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 27, 2021)

This is why I got the R6 over the R5. I intend to pair it with one of these. Should be an awesome combo. I have a c70 for filming anyway.


----------



## gavinz (Mar 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


May be a no mechanical shutter but a low fps global electronic shutter.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes I know the market is probably there, my point was that as far as I can see the market is being driven by photographers personal desires not a technical requirement necessary for customer work (except for possibly a tiny fraction of a very small niche).
> 
> Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.


I want a 100MP sensor for a variety of reasons. Foremost, even though my default output for most images is down in the 8-12MP range, 100MP capture gives me more breathing room to shoot a little wider and crop in post without taking much of a total resolution hit. Secondly, 8-12MP output Looks better when capturing a 18MP, better at 24MP, better at 30MP, even better still at the 45MP of the R5. I have no doubts that 100MP will look even better still. What that upper limit is, who knows, all I know is when I normalize my output to -8x12 inches at 300PPI, capturing at ever higher resolutions looks better In terms of fine image detail, micro contrast, overall sharpness, and tonal gradiations. And lastly, I just want it.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 27, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yes , that's probably what Canon will do but hoping they'll go that bit further and use their latest sensor technology rather rehashing existing sensors
> However if they just fit the 90D sensor in an R6 body it'll certainly be a great camera anyway and I'll buy one for sure


That would be nice, but at the same time, they do have the very real problem of trying to make money in an ever smaller market, and if the R7 is meant as a 7D and 7DII replacement just the 90D sensor in an R6 body is a pretty significant upgrade for those users, even if it isn’t the latest and greatest. We tend to forget that a lot of photogs buy a system and shoot with it for a long time. Not everybody buys a new camera every couple of years. I know guys who are still shooting with the 5DII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> There's another thing to remember about DP or QP that is not talked about: The very nature of their design is for each "diode" to produce the same value when the image at that point is in focus, and to produce differing +/- values when it is out of focus - that's how they can tell you how much & in what direction it is out of focus at that spot. Regarding increasing MP claims by calling 2 diodes "2 pixels" via extra interpolation: if you're out of focus (eg. for big background blur) then it doesn't matter how many diodes you have at that spot since it's a blur, and if you're in focus at that spot then it doesn't matter either since they produce the same signal. So the DP or QP doesn't really provide for useful higher(2x or 4x) MP claims, but it does provide for excellent phase detection AF which is what it was designed for.


Producing the same signal doesn't mean the sum of the two is useless, you can get different values depending on that sum of equal values. You can do all kinds of clever maths to infer better detail and color by summing different parts of different 'pixels' when they are using multiple diodes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> For all the press hype I have to agree with Tony Northrup: it doesn't seem any better than Preserve Details 2.0. Maybe I just haven't thrown the right RAW file at it yet.


It very much depends on the original file and the type of detail within it. I am getting some files with much better detail than Preserve Details 2.0, others not so much. I have already posted example images in a dedicated thread.

Personally I am finding it a real bonus and it saves me going outside PS for other up sizing options.


----------



## Chig (Mar 27, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> That would be nice, but at the same time, they do have the very real problem of trying to make money in an ever smaller market, and if the R7 is meant as a 7D and 7DII replacement just the 90D sensor in an R6 body is a pretty significant upgrade for those users, even if it isn’t the latest and greatest. We tend to forget that a lot of photogs buy a system and shoot with it for a long time. Not everybody buys a new camera every couple of years. I know guys who are still shooting with the 5DII.


Yep , I'm shooting with my 7D ii and I won't replace it until I can find a camera that gives a very significant upgrade at a price I can afford and the 90D sensor in an R6 (at hopefully a bit lower price than the R6) would be attractive enough for me and many other 7D ii owners , but if Canon makes it a bit more advanced at a bit higher price I'd probably spend the extra money too


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder if you’d really see much difference between the 50mp interpolated up with the latest software compared with a 100mp camera at normal viewing distances given that you'd need about 140mp to achieve 48" long side @ 300 dpi anyway. To me the angle of diminishing returns is beginning to get pretty steep.


Which of course sends us directly to Kieth who has, of course, already investigated the concept and published it ages ago 









Canon 5Ds print performance review - testing image quality with prints


Evaluating the Canon 5Ds in terms of real world print performance, specifically comparing prints taken with the 11MP 1Ds and 21MP 1Ds mk3




www.northlight-images.co.uk













Upsizing and sharpening an old photo for an A2 sized print


Editing, upsizing and sharpening part of an old digital photo from a 10MP camera to make an A2 sized print. Image resizing for prints




www.northlight-images.co.uk













What print resolution works for what viewing distance?


A guide to print and image resolution and minimum viewing distances for prints. How much resolution do you need for large prints




www.northlight-images.co.uk


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 27, 2021)

spider-mario said:


> It makes no difference.


There is an article explaining the differences between EF and RF lens: https://petapixel.com/2019/06/17/canon-this-is-why-rf-lenses-are-outstanding/
Canon took down the video now I am not sure why.


spider-mario said:


> As far as I am concerned, I hope they keep the AA filter. I despise aliasing.


Back in 5DS era, their strategy was to launch two almost identical cameras, one with and one without AA. If you shoot landscape most of time you won't care about about aliasing and likely you don't might slightly lower AF. For sports and indoor aliasing becomes annoying and people usually care AF speed A LOT. 

For me a good landscape camera shouldn't have AA filter on the sensor. But that is just me


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 27, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Might be the wrong forum - you might need to ask somewhere that people with Phase one backs post...
> 
> ... or maybe this rumor is just Canon's way of doing market research on whether or not people will buy it (I won't as it'll be too hard to get good results with hand held photography.)


With lens I.S. and IBIS, I don't think good results handheld will be a problem


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 28, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> With lens I.S. and IBIS, I don't think good results handheld will be a problem



People get good results with the 90D and M6 mark II. I'll admit that I continue to use focal length x 1.6 on the 5Ds, held over from my crop days. That seems to work fine. A 100mp sensor might need 2x focal length, but then subtract IBIS / IS back out.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 28, 2021)

Exciting News !
Hope it comes sooner than later. My 5DS R's are getting worn out.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 28, 2021)

dilbert said:


> it (I won't as it'll be too hard to get good results with hand held photography.)


More MPIX does not add to the amount of blur as it is a pure optical function. When Nikon released the D800 36 MPIX camera in 2012 reviewers ran amok at the risk of "motion blur" when hand holding - because for the first time they could see it. Here, years later, pro reviewers understand that the number of MPIX does not matter and most reviews have stopped perpetuating this error. But myths live strong on the internet.

Here some of the myth building from DPR: "Back to resolution though. Can the D800 make good on its pixel count and provide a level of fine detail that trumps its DSLR rivals? It can. We emphasize the word _can_, because if you're truly after 36MP performance, be prepared to do some work. Flawless technique and top-shelf equipment (particularly lenses and a tripod) along with a low ISO are requirements not options. We've spent an inordinate amount of time in the preparation of this review getting things _just so_ in order to reap what we feel the D800 is capable of producing."

Fortunately no such blah, blah, blah when reviewing the much higher MPIX R5. Now they write: "The Canon EOS R5 is well-suited for just about any type of photographer, whether you shoot portraits, events, weddings, sports, family gatherings, and more." And it is. Just like the 100 MPIX R will be.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Which of course sends us directly to Kieth who has, of course, already investigated the concept and published it ages ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are very good resources and I do like Keith's reviews and articles as he looks at things from a practical photographer's point of view. 

To be honest I think that if everyone's main interest was to print pictures we wouldn't see the same drive for higher and higher mp, but of course generally the complete reverse is true and people are getting larger and larger monitors, with higher and higher resolution screens and want to view their images at full size, and good for them if that is what they enjoy. In fact the old adage about not seeing the wood (forest) for the trees is applicable although now you could say 'not see the wood for the bark on the trees' !

I read people who defend the need for higher and higher mp saying 'why wasn't 8mp enough' and then 10, 12mp etc, 'why did we need 20' and so on. Well there is a perfectly reasonable answer to this; given the physical size that we humans are, and our average vision, 8mp is only enough to print very small at a high dpi, and the limit of the resolution means that if you interpolate up to a greater sized output, although the image may be perfectly 'sharp' detail is lacking. 20mp on the other hand is itself very high resolution, has a native output size of a good medium sized print, say A3 super, and has the resolution (assuming a good file) to be interpolated up much larger, to what we would consider to be a big print and still have a high dpi. So as you go beyond 20mp in FF it is diminishing returns IMO. Certainly this is what I have found in using the 5DS for a few years. 

All I can say is that after four years of using 50mp cameras my next one will definitely be a lower mp, somewhere between 20 and 30. Then at least as I upgrade by computer systems I can benefit from faster processing whereas at the moment as I upgrade computers to faster machines I also end up lifting the size of the files and so from a processing speed point of view stand still. 

I've been shooting digital since 2005 when the original 5D came out, and there isn't one of my 12mp pictures that I've now thought 'what a pity I didn't take that on a 5DS', at least from a resolution point of view.


----------



## macrunning (Mar 28, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I want a 100MP sensor for a variety of reasons. Foremost, even though my default output for most images is down in the 8-12MP range, 100MP capture gives me more breathing room to shoot a little wider and crop in post without taking much of a total resolution hit. Secondly, 8-12MP output Looks better when capturing a 18MP, better at 24MP, better at 30MP, even better still at the 45MP of the R5. I have no doubts that 100MP will look even better still. What that upper limit is, who knows, all I know is when I normalize my output to -8x12 inches at 300PPI, capturing at ever higher resolutions looks better In terms of fine image detail, micro contrast, overall sharpness, and tonal gradiations. And lastly, I just want it.


So are you printing or is this for online? 8x12 would seem to indicate you are printing. Using the term PPI would seem to indicate you are using online in which case 150 would be more than suffice. If print, then the R5 would has more the twice the pixels needed to print an 8x12 at 300dpi. Would seem anything beyond that just get a good telephoto lens and take a good shot to start and avoid having to crop in. I personally would rather have another lens to go with the R5 than spend funds on a new body but if money is no object than I say have at it.


----------



## landscaper (Mar 28, 2021)

Why is it taking Canon 7 YEARS 
to UPDATE their High Resolution Camera Model ?? 

EOS 5ds / 5dsr Released in Spring 2015 

Is this Market Segment not Profitable Anymore ??

And it is there Resolve to let Sony and Fuji take over this Area so Lake and focus on the generalist and pro fast action market segments 

Big Mistake in my Opinion 

Huge Numbers of People will have jumped ship to the Sony A7Rx and 
Fuji GFX Lines

That are Innovating and Updating on a 
24 Month Cycle

Adios CANON 
It was Great while it Lasted but...

The Fuji GFX 100s is Calling out to Me 

Canon Shooter since 1976
(Canon AE-1)


----------



## Fischer (Mar 28, 2021)

landscaper said:


> Why is it taking Canon 7 YEARS
> to UPDATE their High Resolution Camera Model ??
> 
> EOS 5ds / 5dsr Released in Spring 2015
> ...


The 5DS/R is still selling - so maybe it was just very good at doing what it was made for. I never felt any reason to upgrade before mirrorless came along. Sure, I would have liked to see Canon get into mirrorless with all its advantages faster. But they at least came out with a big splash with the R6 and R5 which both are great cameras. To me it looks like Canon has a winning strategy. So far they sold me a R6 and I'll also be preordering the R5s to match my complement of RF-glass. YMMV.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 28, 2021)

landscaper said:


> Why is it taking Canon 7 YEARS
> to UPDATE their High Resolution Camera Model ??
> 
> That are Innovating and Updating on a
> ...


If you like 24 month refresh cycles you may be better off with Sony rather than Fuji. But then the Sony is only 60mp.........
P.S. I hated the AE-1


----------



## MrToes (Mar 28, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> If you like 24 month refresh cycles you may be better off with Sony rather than Fuji. But then the Sony is only 60mp.........
> P.S. I hated the AE-1


I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 28, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The 5DS/R is still selling - so maybe it was just very good at doing what it was made for. I never felt any reason to upgrade before mirrorless came along. Sure, I would have liked to see Canon get into mirrorless with all its advantages faster. But they at least came out with a big splash with the R6 and R5 which both are great cameras. To me it looks like Canon has a winning strategy. So far they sold me a R6 and I'll also be preordering the R5s to match my complement of RF-glass. YMMV.





Sporgon said:


> If you like 24 month refresh cycles you may be better off with Sony rather than Fuji. But then the Sony is only 60mp.........
> P.S. I hated the AE-1


I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 28, 2021)

landscaper said:


> Why is it taking Canon 7 YEARS
> to UPDATE their High Resolution Camera Model ??
> 
> EOS 5ds / 5dsr Released in Spring 2015
> ...


I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 28, 2021)

macrunning said:


> So are you printing or is this for online? 8x12 would seem to indicate you are printing. Using the term PPI would seem to indicate you are using online in which case 150 would be more than suffice. If print, then the R5 would has more the twice the pixels needed to print an 8x12 at 300dpi. Would seem anything beyond that just get a good telephoto lens and take a good shot to start and avoid having to crop in. I personally would rather have another lens to go with the R5 than spend funds on a new body but if money is no object than I say have at it.


Both digital display and print. 

For digital display, the size is normalized to 3840x2560 pixels so that it is roughly a 1:1 for a 4K display with some vertical cropping If viewing on a 16x9 display. How many pixels per inch that comes out to will depend on your display size. A computer monitor will be quite high. A 65 inch 4K TV will be quite low. Both will look very good.

For print it is normalized to 3600x2400 pixels which comes out to 300 pixels per inch if printed at 8x12 inches. Don’t confuse image pixels per inch with printer dots per inch. Printers put dots down to make image pixels on paper. The number of dots used to make one full color image pixel pixel on the paper is significantly higher than the number image pixels. The bigger you print, the less image pixels per inch you need unless you have an extremely bad habit of sticking your nose up against a large print. People don’t stick their nose up against a 4K TV when watching TV, why they do that when looking at a large print is beyond me.

At any rate, yes. I output for both, and yes, it comes out to ~8-10MP. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. Capturing at higher resolutions does make 8-10MP output look better.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 28, 2021)

MrToes said:


> I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.


Canon tends to be slower, but bigger jumps. Sony and company are just now matching or exceeding where canon was at 7 years ago in resolution. How many canon bodies did you buy to finally get 50MP In the last 7 years? One. How many Sony bodies did you buy in that same time period To finally get to 50+MP? So which platform was less expensive Over the same timer period? I’ll take Canon any day of the week, thank you very much, unless of course you like spending thousands of dollars every couple years to replace your stuff. I’d rather buy less frequently in bigger jumps. It’s less expensive.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 28, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> Canon tends to be slower, but bigger jumps. Sony and company are just now matching or exceeding where canon was at 7 years ago in resolution. How many canon bodies did you buy to finally get 50MP In the last 7 years? One. How many Sony bodies did you buy in that same time period To finally get to 50+MP? So which platform was less expensive Over the same timer period? I’ll take Canon any day of the week, thank you very much, unless of course you like spending thousands of dollars every couple years to replace your stuff. I’d rather buy less frequently in bigger jumps. It’s less expensive.


Since the AE1 days, I have gotten married to almost 40 Canon lenses that would be nearly impossible to part with. So I have the ball and chain on me. But I am in need of two body's that have higher resolution than our 5DSR's and have good working shutters. We are on our last leg on one body already ............


----------



## stevelee (Mar 28, 2021)

MrToes said:


> I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.





MrToes said:


> I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.





MrToes said:


> I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.





MrToes said:


> I agree! For as much talk about "Conon being an innovating company" , they aren't doing it very fast.


You can say that again!


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 28, 2021)

The 7D replacement enthusiasts are quite vocal about their need for 90D pixel density and that the R5's crop mode is only ~17mp. A full frame version with the same density would be ~80mp so they are a potential group of R5s buyers if Canon doesn't release a crop R sensor (and associated wide angle R lenses to suit).
What is clear to me is that a replacement 7D/7Dii with weather sealing, high fps, dual card, top AF performance at a relatively cheap price was a marketing unicorn and most likely won't be repeated with the same feature set/price in the R mount.
If a R5s is used for birding etc then it will be expensive and high fps and AF performance may be less than the R5/R6 simply due to the sensor read out rate of that many pixels.
I definitely appreciate the additional mp in the R5 vs 5Div - mostly for cropability - but wouldn't be tempted by a R5s. Previous/current buyers of the 5DS/R would be the same niche buyers in today's market for an additional bump in mp for whatever their use cases are.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 28, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> All I can say is that after four years of using 50mp cameras my next one will definitely be a lower mp, somewhere between 20 and 30. Then at least as I upgrade by computer systems I can benefit from faster processing whereas at the moment as I upgrade computers to faster machines I also end up lifting the size of the files and so from a processing speed point of view stand still.



Shooting 50mp...I never want to go back.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 28, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> All I can say is that after four years of using 50mp cameras my next one will definitely be a lower mp, somewhere between 20 and 30...


As a side note, I have to say that I'm not sure what dark magic Canon has employed but I would swear that the 20mp files from my 1Dx III appear to have significantly more apparent resolution than the files from my 1DX II. I'm willing to entertain the notion that it is simply confirmation bias on my part, but then again, it sure doesn't seem like that's the case.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.
> 
> Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?
> 
> There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?


I'd make use of it for high-resolution macro images. And for everything else pretty much.

And no, absolutely not, a crop RF camera at the same pixel density would be a poor substitute for this because you're losing all that extra area around your central point for tracking the subject both in terms of what you can see through the viewfinder and more importantly, the autofocus AI.

So even if you ALWAYS crop your images to APS-C, you'll still be better off using a FF 100mpx camera and cropping down. (This is why APS-C will die and the R7 will be a one-off I suspect.)


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> ...a crop RF camera at the same pixel density would be a poor substitute for this because you're losing all that extra area around your central point for tracking the subject both in terms of what you can see through the viewfinder and more importantly, the autofocus AI.
> 
> So even if you ALWAYS crop your images to APS-C, you'll still be better off using a FF 100mpx camera and cropping down...


Not quite. The smaller the subject is in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus. 

Each had its advantages and disadvantages. Do you take advantage of the extra real estate around your autofocus point to give you more flexibility and a greater chance at framing a moving object? Or do you crop more tightly and give yourself a better chance of getting the subject in focus? 

It is true that with a 100mp R you can crop the image in the viewfinder and create what is for most purposes a 1.6 crop sensor camera. But, some on this forum object to paying for a full frame when they will almost always be cropping to at least a 1.6x factor.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.
> 
> Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?


From Canon's perspective, "Because I'd like it," is more significant than any solid use case. After all, there are a lot more cameras sold because "I'd like it," than those sold because "I need it."


----------



## landscaper (Mar 29, 2021)

I NEED 100+ MEGAPIXELS 

Because I Print 60" x 90" Prints on the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO Printer our Company has 

I Need 300+ dpi / ppi for Sharp Close Viewing "Hallway" Prints

Simple Math :

Ideally I Need 

300 dpi x 300dpi x 60" x 90"
= 486 Million Pixels (Megapixels)

Many of my Landscape Shots I Can't : 

PIXEL SHIFT
PANO STITCH
SOFTWARE UPREZ 
SOFTWARE STEP SHARPENING

Because of Subject Movement 
Of Vegetation, Water , Sky , Wildlife 

I'll Take as Many Pixels as Technologically Possible


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not quite. The smaller the subject is in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus.
> 
> Each had its advantages and disadvantages. Do you take advantage of the extra real estate around your autofocus point to give you more flexibility and a greater chance at framing a moving object? Or do you crop more tightly and give yourself a better chance of getting the subject in focus?
> 
> It is true that with a 100mp R you can crop the image in the viewfinder and create what is for most purposes a 1.6 crop sensor camera. But, some on this forum object to paying for a full frame when they will almost always be cropping to at least a 1.6x factor.


I would much rather have the subject appear closer in the viewfinder, both for tracking and focus. And I would much rather have a Crop camera with the same pixel density, compared to a full frame 100 MP camera likely costing twice as much.

I understand the big push towards full frame. I just wonder how many camera buyers are going full frame due to the constant marketing of YouTube reveiwers and influencers and forums like this one that make it seem as if only Full Frame can give you what you really want. As sensors have improved over the years, I have found that the low light advantage of Full Frame is nowhere as important now as it was a few years ago. There are so many advantages for me and what I like to shoot using a crop camera (I shoot MFT) that I just sold my Canon R and lenses. If Canon comes out with some Crop "R" cameras, I will definitely be in the market. And, since I do shoot a lot of sunsets, I will not rule out a new Canon FF camera if it is affordable enough - something in the price range of the Nikon Z5 - or the RP with a newer sensor on par with the current R. If APS-C crop were to die out, that would be a major blow to those of us who are still looking for less expensive and smaller kits. Without the marketing hype, I would have thought FF was far more endangered and APS-C crop was more likely to survive long term.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> From Canon's perspective, "Because I'd like it," is more significant than any solid use case. After all, there are a lot more cameras sold because "I'd like it," than those sold because "I need it."


Oh I agree and well understand that, and that is why it will come about. And I am sure no end of ‘influencers’ and ‘experts’ will gush over the capability (for a few seconds).

But I’m still curious as to why people think they want it, it fascinates me that people are sold on an idea (not just for cameras) even when it goes entirely contrary to what they are mostly best served by.

I understood the first mega pixel race, I understood the DR wars, I understood the desire to get previously undreamt of iso performance, I just don’t understand this renewed mega pixel race for any but the most specialized and niche of uses.


----------



## SnowMiku (Mar 29, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd make use of it for high-resolution macro images. And for everything else pretty much.
> 
> And no, absolutely not, a crop RF camera at the same pixel density would be a poor substitute for this because you're losing all that extra area around your central point for tracking the subject both in terms of what you can see through the viewfinder and more importantly, the autofocus AI.
> 
> So even if you ALWAYS crop your images to APS-C, you'll still be better off using a FF 100mpx camera and cropping down. (This is why APS-C will die and the R7 will be a one-off I suspect.)



You have a good point with the FF 100MP being better for tracking with the wider view, but not everyone can afford this, The APS-C is more affordable for hobbyists so I think it should stay.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2021)

landscaper said:


> I NEED 100+ MEGAPIXELS
> 
> Because I Print 60" x 90" Prints on the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO Printer our Company has
> 
> ...


You have had the GFX100 for a couple of years, now the GFX100S. If you truly are doing what you say no 135 format sensor now or in the next ten years is going to be ‘what you need’, and probably never will.

Mind you given the price of decent 60” x90” prints you should be using Phase One backs that have even bigger sensors and have had over 150MP for years.

The tools are already there for you, pretending you need a saloon car to win a F1 race is a joke.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 29, 2021)

Love those Canon 20MP flagships


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Love those Canon 20MP flagships


So do thousands of others .......
When you look at something like Wildlife Photographer of the Year it’s remarkable how many are using ‘low’ mp cameras when at least 36 has been available for years.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> As a side note, I have to say that I'm not sure what dark magic Canon has employed but I would swear that the 20mp files from my 1Dx III appear to have significantly more apparent resolution than the files from my 1DX II. I'm willing to entertain the notion that it is simply confirmation bias on my part, but then again, it sure doesn't seem like that's the case.


I think it will be the revised AA filter tech.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 29, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> The bigger you print, the less image pixels per inch you need unless you have an extremely bad habit of sticking your nose up against a large print. People don’t stick their nose up against a 4K TV when watching TV, why they do that when looking at a large print is beyond me.


I often see this argument - but I disagree. People have much higher expectations to all media - Tv, film, video, photo, prints, coffee shop books etc than they used to have. Sure for you family shots and prints its all up to the subject. But show people a pictures of a clear moon today and they will intuitively scan it for the finest detail. Also, look at all the 4K youtube videos and channels out there. Content wise it should make no difference for the producers except it seemlingly does - and so the people behind the channels use a lot of more time and processing power and more expensive equipment to have that upgrade. The fact that recommended size/viewing distances for TV's and video games have reduced dramatically compared to previously says everything. People do stick their noses into our prints today (if there is fine subject detail to be admired).


----------



## MrToes (Mar 29, 2021)

stevelee said:


> You can say that again!


Fargen Cumputurs


----------



## cayenne (Mar 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And my point was if you are regularly printing to 48” other camera systems are already better suited to that than a 100mp 135 format. But how many of us are regularly printing to 48”? I suspect a lot fewer than R5s’s will be sold!


I"m trying!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2021)

cayenne said:


> I"m trying!!!


Indeed we know you upped your game this past year but we also know you have the GFX 100 so are already past this 135 format big print contretemp!

Funnily enough I printed a borderless 24” x 39” image yesterday from a 135 format file and used the new PS Enhance to up the resolution from the customers base file. It worked very well though the truth is it had been ‘Topazed’ anyway so was more painterly and didn’t give an accurate demonstration of raw detail.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You have had the GFX100 for a couple of years, now the GFX100S. If you truly are doing what you say no 135 format sensor now or in the next ten years is going to be ‘what you need’, and probably never will.



A 100mp R5s will deliver substantially the same IQ as a GFX 100S, or even as a full 645 sensor at 100mp. The larger sensors would certainly have a high ISO gain, and could possibly yield some more base ISO DR. They would also be a bit sharper out of camera if all other factors are equal. But the differences would not be night and day.

We've seen this every time, over the past 15 years, that 35mm sensors have momentarily matched 645 and crop-645 sensor resolutions. 1Ds mark III and 5D mark II vs Mamiya ZD. D800 vs 30-40mp backs. 5Ds and 5DsR vs 40-60 MP backs.

I'm guessing that will not hold beyond 100mp. But I think it will prove true again at 100mp. And if he has determined that he only needs roughly 130 ppi for satisfactory viewing of 90" prints (at a corresponding distance) then he won't have to wait 10 years for a 35mm sensor to deliver.

Now he did say he would love to have 300 ppi at that size. If that's the long term goal I would agree it will only be met someday by a full 645 sensor camera.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 30, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I did meant A7R II.
> The comparison is straight to the point - two cameras sold in the same time to the market to the same group of people. and Nope Canon did not catch up fast. Their DSLR sensor was lagging by more than one generation for 3-4 years until EOS system reaches the market. It is long enough that I was seriously evaluating possibility to switch side. There were real doubt that Canon will never be serious about mirrorless as the first few crop models also failed miserably



I said the R5 caught up. I stated the 5Ds / 5Ds was at least 3 generations back of even Canon's own sensor technology that this 100mp camera would have, and that they caught up now as demonstrated by the R5.

so comparing A7RII to the 5DS and trying to come up with equivalence to where canon is today is misguided and woefully inaccurate.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 30, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Shooting 50mp...I never want to go back.


Same here. I've been shooting with the R5 for a while now. Just this past weekend I pulled my little EOS M5 out and shot some stuff while down at the beach with my family. Looking at those images on the computer, I kept thinking I must have missed focus or didn't have the shutter speed up high enough as it just was missing that fine detail and overall sharpness. 24MP is not a slouch, but roughly double the MP is significantly better looking.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 30, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I often see this argument - but I disagree. People have much higher expectations to all media - Tv, film, video, photo, prints, coffee shop books etc than they used to have. Sure for you family shots and prints its all up to the subject. But show people a pictures of a clear moon today and they will intuitively scan it for the finest detail. Also, look at all the 4K youtube videos and channels out there. Content wise it should make no difference for the producers except it seemlingly does - and so the people behind the channels use a lot of more time and processing power and more expensive equipment to have that upgrade. The fact that recommended size/viewing distances for TV's and video games have reduced dramatically compared to previously says everything. People do stick their noses into our prints today (if there is fine subject detail to be admired).


We'll have to respectfully disagree. I do actually have a *very large* 4K TV, and do regularly make *very large* prints. Subject matter is king above all else. If you actually have a compelling large image, more people will step back to take it all in than those who will step forward to inspect fine detail. Even then, they'll come in to get a closer look to get better appreciation, not to inspect it and pick it apart. As long as you have enough fine detail so that the closer look does show more detail, you don't have to be totally pin sharp, just have more detail. The vast majority of viewers are more interested in the content of the image, not the technical minutae of what went into it.

That's not to say if you can totally pack in the fine detail and actually render max res at max print size that you shouldn't. You just don't have to in order to have a large print that people can appreciate, so don't be afraid to print large, even if you don't have the high resolution. If it's a good image, people will appreciate it.


----------



## MarinnaCole (Mar 30, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I said the R5 caught up. I stated the 5Ds / 5Ds was at least 3 generations back of even Canon's own sensor technology that this 100mp camera would have, and that they caught up now as demonstrated by the R5.
> 
> so comparing A7RII to the 5DS and trying to come up with equivalence to where canon is today is misguided and woefully inaccurate.


I was simply saying 5DSR is HORRIBLE comparing to Sony. That was a very dark history of Canon and I DIDNOT state anything nearly close to that Canon is still horrible today. I honestly don't know where you got that impression from. In fact your comparison between sensors 5~6 years apart was woefully wrong. No one in history would ever do comparison between product this far apart. It simply makes no sense


----------



## stevelee (Mar 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Indeed we know you upped your game this past year but we also know you have the GFX 100 so are already past this 135 format big print contretemp!
> 
> Funnily enough I printed a borderless 24” x 39” image yesterday from a 135 format file and used the new PS Enhance to up the resolution from the customers base file. It worked very well though the truth is it had been ‘Topazed’ anyway so was more painterly and didn’t give an accurate demonstration of raw detail.


I have a 13” x 19” print of a picture I took In Alaska in 2002 with a 4 MP camera. It is framed and hanging with other pictures in my hallway. I can’t see anything wrong with it even close up. I didn’t do anything special to it. The printer software may have done some magic, but it was just the stock software for the printer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I have a 13” x 19” print of a picture I took In Alaska in 2002 with a 4 MP camera. It is framed and hanging with other pictures in my hallway. I can’t see anything wrong with it even close up. I didn’t do anything special to it. The printer software may have done some magic, but it was just the stock software for the printer.


Printers do work wonders with their interpolation, but there is are huge differences in images and the detail and contrast within them. Some low contrast low detail images are easily printed oversize very effectively, other images with high contrast and fine detail can break down surprisingly easily or benefit from very high pixel to print resolution.


----------



## RGF (Mar 30, 2021)

100 MP camera with 40-60 MP lens. Hmmm...


----------



## Fischer (Mar 30, 2021)

RGF said:


> 100 MP camera with 40-60 MP lens. Hmmm...


All lenses perform better with more MPIX. So your higher MPIX camera not only lets you crop more, it also improves the quality of all your images.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 30, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I was simply saying 5DSR is HORRIBLE comparing to Sony.



And that's where your message falls flat. It was not horrible. Higher resolution, competitive high ISO, but worse base ISO DR by about 2ev. Put another way, it "only" had the DR of Kodak Portra 

That's not "horrible" by any reasonable definition of the word. Saying the 5DsR was horrible for only having 12.4 stops of DR is like saying the A7rII was horrible for only having 42mp. I guess those 36mp cameras from Nikon and Sony were really trash.

The 5DsR is not horrible even today, 6 years later, as it's still one of the highest resolving 35mm sensors and still has competitive high ISO. (High ISO doesn't move much, blame physics.) Now it's behind on base ISO DR by about 2.5ev as the very best sensors here have improved a little bit. Note I said 'very best' because most shipping FF sensors are around 13-14ev, not 14-15ev.

If my 5Ds ever produced a horrible image file, it would be my fault, not the camera's. You can expand that to pretty much any camera made in the last decade.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Mar 30, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> And that's where your message falls flat. It was not horrible. Higher resolution, competitive high ISO, but worse base ISO DR by about 2ev. Put another way, it "only" had the DR of Kodak Portra
> 
> That's not "horrible" by any reasonable definition of the word. Saying the 5DsR was horrible for only having 12.4 stops of DR is like saying the A7rII was horrible for only having 42mp. I guess those 36mp cameras from Nikon and Sony were really trash.
> 
> ...


I think people tend to get caught up in specsmanship on paper, and forget that it's all relative. Anything over 11-12 stops of DR is totally usable in real life. In certain instances it may not be as well suited as a different camera with higher base ISO DR, but that does not make the camera garbage or horrible, and does not mean you can't use it, you just have to get to the intended picture a different way, like bracketing shots. Sure, you might be able to get it all in one shot with a Sony, but in reality, if I were doing it for a paying job, I'd be bringing a tripod and bracketing shots no matter what anyway to make sure I got the shot, and at that point, I'd rather have the 50MP over the higher DR of the Sony. Again, it's all relative.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 31, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> You have a good point with the FF 100MP being better for tracking with the wider view, but not everyone can afford this, The APS-C is more affordable for hobbyists so I think it should stay.


For sure, for now there's an important price diferential. But as sensor prices fall and the price differential between APS-C and FF narrows (and I doubt the R7 will be cheaper than the entry FF R camera the RP) the justification for separate APS-C bodies will diminish.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 31, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not quite. The smaller the subject is in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus.


You can always expand the viewfinder to only show the 1.6 crop area, this way you can nail the focus as you wish but the AF still has the advantage of the expanded area. And as increasingly nailing the focus is going to be down to the camera and not you (especially with fast action) again there's advantage from using FF.



unfocused said:


> Each had its advantages and disadvantages. Do you take advantage of the extra real estate around your autofocus point to give you more flexibility and a greater chance at framing a moving object? Or do you crop more tightly and give yourself a better chance of getting the subject in focus?


As I said before, with a FF sensor, and everything else being equal, you have more chance of getting something in focus (using autofocus) than having an APS-C sensor. 



unfocused said:


> It is true that with a 100mp R you can crop the image in the viewfinder and create what is for most purposes a 1.6 crop sensor camera. But, some on this forum object to paying for a full frame when they will almost always be cropping to at least a 1.6x factor.



The ONLY real disadvantages for using FF over APS-C assuming the sensor is otherwise identical are the potential for faster frame rates due to smaller RAW sizes, smaller end files to work with, and of course, the price differential. But these issues will slowly become less and less important as the tech improves and the pricing differential narrows. And at some point Canon will see there's little point in carrying on with RF APS-C bodies. It may take 5 years, maybe more. But it will happen, I'm sure of it.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 31, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> You can always expand the viewfinder to only show the 1.6 crop area, this way you can nail the focus as you wish but the AF still has the advantage of the expanded area. And as increasingly nailing the focus is going to be down to the camera and not you (especially with fast action) again there's advantage from using FF.
> 
> 
> As I said before, with a FF sensor, and everything else being equal, you have more chance of getting something in focus (using autofocus) than having an APS-C sensor.
> ...


I agree with your comments regarding the benefits of using FF bodies in crop mode. But you forgot to mention that the APS-C can have a body and lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter. I still miss my M43 Olympus for that reason, and if they'd stayed in business I might have kept it with their latest body & lenses for when I want to go with the smallest & lightest possible, while keeping the R5 & lenses for the best IQ possible. Canon's APS-C could be the same if they focused on that aspect.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 31, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> A 100mp R5s will deliver substantially the same IQ as a GFX 100S, or even as a full 645 sensor at 100mp. The larger sensors would certainly have a high ISO gain, and could possibly yield some more base ISO DR. They would also be a bit sharper out of camera if all other factors are equal. But the differences would not be night and day.
> 
> We've seen this every time, over the past 15 years, that 35mm sensors have momentarily matched 645 and crop-645 sensor resolutions. 1Ds mark III and 5D mark II vs Mamiya ZD. D800 vs 30-40mp backs. 5Ds and 5DsR vs 40-60 MP backs.
> 
> ...


I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
Sure it isn't as large of a difference as it would be if the digital MF sensor was truly as large as a MF film size (6x6, 6x7, etc)....but it is big enough to make a difference.
The bokeh and rendering is different. You have larger glass grabbing light, etc....I can tell you from the images I see out of the gfx100 compared to my FF cameras, there is a difference.

The higher ISO usage makes a difference too. (it kinda has to since it is a bit more difficult to make MF lenses that are fast.

And if you were to jump up to the even larger digital MF sensor of the Phase One...whew....there's a difference.

Is it drastic enough to spend that extra $$? Depends on your use case, your budget and your personal opinions.

But there are reasons that high end product shooters and fashion shooters in the commercial markets use digital MF cameras...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 31, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Shooting 50mp...I never want to go back.


 I know where you're coming from and I think that I will always keep one 5DS body in the future. It's just when you come back from an event like a wedding with 600 to 800 images which will never be printed larger than 17", with maybe an odd canvas at 24" it's a hell of a lot of data baggage. I do have a reasonable work around solution though, and that is writing medium jpgs to the SD card, and full raw to the CF. Then I convert the raws in LR to 24mp TIFF. This way with the exception of the raw upload my workflow is pretty quick and not slowed by the size of the raws. I find that with very accurate exposure the OOC jpegs from the 5DS are pretty good.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 1, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Sure it isn't as large of a difference as it would be if the digital MF sensor was truly as large as a MF film size (6x6, 6x7, etc)....but it is big enough to make a difference.
> The bokeh and rendering is different.



The way bokeh looks is a lens characteristic, not a format characteristic. Helios swirl is Helios swirl regardless of the sensor or film behind it, as an example. The amount of blue is impacted by format, but is equivalent for equivalent lenses between two formats. An RF 50mm f/1.2 is going to give you pretty much the same DoF and blur amount as a Mamiya 80 f/1.9. As to which is more pleasing...that's up to the optical formula. But that could go either way.



cayenne said:


> You have larger glass grabbing light, etc....I can tell you from the images I see out of the gfx100 compared to my FF cameras, there is a difference.



Yes but that's the 100mp version. Compare test shots from the 50mp sensor and the R5. The Fuji is better. A bit sharper and picking up a bit more detail near extinction resolution. But the difference is not night and day.



cayenne said:


> The higher ISO usage makes a difference too. (it kinda has to since it is a bit more difficult to make MF lenses that are fast.



Higher ISO I acknowledge, if your lens is fast enough.



cayenne said:


> And if you were to jump up to the even larger digital MF sensor of the Phase One...whew....there's a difference.



Back in the day I seriously considered an Aptus-II 10. (Well...lusted after is probably the better way to describe it. I could not have afforded one new.) That's not quite full 645 because it's 3:2 but it is full width. I still have some sample shots on my drive, and it's not significantly better than 35mm sensors with matching resolutions, including the 5Ds. 

Sampling frequency (MP) is simply a huge factor in how big the difference is between two near formats. A larger format will always be able to deliver higher IQ assuming someone is making a sensor with comparable pixel density / MP to the smaller format being compared. But things get surprisingly close when the MP are the same. Not equal...the larger format retains a high ISO and sharpness advantage, and should have a DR advantage given equal tech...but very close.

Again, I don't think this will hold much beyond 100mp, but I think it will still hold at 100mp.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 1, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I know where you're coming from and I think that I will always keep one 5DS body in the future. It's just when you come back from an event like a wedding with 600 to 800 images which will never be printed larger than 17", with maybe an odd canvas at 24" it's a hell of a lot of data baggage. I do have a reasonable work around solution though, and that is writing medium jpgs to the SD card, and full raw to the CF. Then I convert the raws in LR to 24mp TIFF. This way with the exception of the raw upload my workflow is pretty quick and not slowed by the size of the raws. I find that with very accurate exposure the OOC jpegs from the 5DS are pretty good.



I can appreciate that. And that's a good work around.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I just don’t understand this renewed mega pixel race for any but the most specialized and niche of uses.


I think that's the answer to your question. That camera is made for specialized and niche users *and* uses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think that's the answer to your question. That camera is made for specialized and niche users *and* uses.


But nobody can really tell me what they are, other than the large print market, and that is a tiny market that is already well served. It certainly isn’t large enough to support a bulk camera model.

I suppose I need to accept the fact that people will just buy it because they want it even though it is unlikely to be the most appropriate camera for their actual use.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 1, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I agree with your comments regarding the benefits of using FF bodies in crop mode. But you forgot to mention that the APS-C can have a body and lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter. I still miss my M43 Olympus for that reason, and if they'd stayed in business I might have kept it with their latest body & lenses for when I want to go with the smallest & lightest possible, while keeping the R5 & lenses for the best IQ possible. Canon's APS-C could be the same if they focused on that aspect.


I didn't mention it because it's not really relevent to the RF ecosystem. Canon have repeatedly said they won't be launching APS-C lenses for R, the R7 isn't likely to be a small and compact camera, and Canon already have a very successful compact APS-C system with the M series.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Apr 1, 2021)

I have not been paying too much attention to this thread recently and there is a lot to go through so I am just going to ask. I just say Fro's latest update and he stated the R5s had been announced. Even gave a few specs to go with it. Did I miss it or is he drunk?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I suppose I need to accept the fact that people will just buy it because they want it even though it is unlikely to be the most appropriate camera for their actual use.


Correct. Like folks who stand in line for the latest iPhone. Nothing wrong with the old phone, but just want the new.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Correct. Like folks who stand in line for the latest iPhone. Nothing wrong with the old phone, but just want the new.


Hey, there's a lot of people out there with a *lot* of disposable income.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Correct. Like folks who stand in line for the latest iPhone. Nothing wrong with the old phone, but just want the new.


What do you mean, “nothing wrong with the old one”? ! The damn batteries fail after two years !


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> I have not been paying too much attention to this thread recently and there is a lot to go through so I am just going to ask. I just say Fro's latest update and he stated the R5s had been announced. Even gave a few specs to go with it. Did I miss it or is he drunk?


What’s the date of the video? And why didn’t you watch it to the end...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 1, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I didn't mention it because it's not really relevent to the RF ecosystem. Canon have repeatedly said they won't be launching APS-C lenses for R, the R7 isn't likely to be a small and compact camera, and Canon already have a very successful compact APS-C system with the M series.


Yes, Canon isn't pushing APS-C for the R. But my comment was that that they *could* do it if they wanted to. And if they did, then they could have made a stunningly great system within the R mount with an APS-C small body with a viewfinder and everything else state of the art including small R-C lenses for it. If it's not a good business decision in today's market, then I can understand. But I still say that they *could* do it if they wanted to.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 1, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> What do you mean, “nothing wrong with the old one”? ! The damn batteries fail after two years !


Lol! Please don’t tell me that.  The batteries can be replaced.


----------



## jeliel (Apr 1, 2021)

I'm just waiting for a Canon small FF body, like the Sony Alpha A7C, or smaller ...


----------



## Aussie shooter (Apr 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What’s the date of the video? And why didn’t you watch it to the end...


Yeah. I realised a few hours later what the date was. Obviously not particularly on the ball when I watched it. 1 point to Fro I guess


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yeah. I realised a few hours later what the date was. Obviously not particularly on the ball when I watched it. 1 point to Fro I guess


I know a lot here don’t like him but I think he has a pretty good sense of humor, and he did troll Sony, Nikon and Canon fanboys equally 

I think it was so easy because we all seem to want the next something. That R5s and TS-E16 sounded like nice ideas... But the Sony fanboys really want an A7 IV and the Nikonites definitely want a mirrorless D850! It seems to me he has his finger on the pulse even if people don’t like his delivery.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know a lot here don’t like him but I think he has a pretty good sense of humor, and he did troll Sony, Nikon and Canon fanboys equally
> 
> I think it was so easy because we all seem to want the next something. That R5s and TS-E16 sounded like nice ideas... But the Sony fanboys really want an A7 IV and the Nikonites definitely want a mirrorless D850! It seems to me he has his finger on the pulse even if people don’t like his delivery.


Yup...I have to think he might come off as a little abrasive in meatspace...but I gotta admit I get a laugh watching his videos and I do pick up on some stuff from them time to time.

I started watching him a few years ago, I found him while searching how to shoot concerts and low lighting events. 

I like his sense of humor. And well, no-one is everyones' cup of tea....and like you said, I find he's got a decent finger on the pulse of things.
C


----------



## stevelee (Apr 1, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> What do you mean, “nothing wrong with the old one”? ! The damn batteries fail after two years !


More like 3. I had the 6S, and Apple had a deal that ran out on December 31 that year where they would replace the battery for $29.95. My battery was showing 75 or 80% still, but I decided a new battery would let me keep it at least another couple years, and about all the new ones were larger. So I got the battery and kept the phone until the new SE came out.

For a lot of folks, maybe most, the reason for upgrading the phone is to get a better camera. If I want a better camera, I buy a new camera. The new reason to upgrade the phone is to get 5G. I spend so much of my life in range of wifi that I don't see any benefit to me of 5G. And no matter how fast my phone is, I don't talk any faster.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Lol! Please don’t tell me that.  The batteries can be replaced.


Not if you are looking for an excuse to buy a new phone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> More like 3. I had the 6S, and Apple had a deal that ran out on December 31 that year where they would replace the battery for $29.95. My battery was showing 75 or 80% still, but I decided a new battery would let me keep it at least another couple years, and about all the new ones were larger. So I got the battery and kept the phone until the new SE came out.
> 
> For a lot of folks, maybe most, the reason for upgrading the phone is to get a better camera. If I want a better camera, I buy a new camera. The new reason to upgrade the phone is to get 5G. I spend so much of my life in range of wifi that I don't see any benefit to me of 5G. And no matter how fast my phone is, I don't talk any faster.


I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know a lot here don’t like him but I think he has a pretty good sense of humor, and he did troll Sony, Nikon and Canon fanboys equally



I think he does an ok job of getting news across w/o it becoming a spec read snooze fest.

However, I think all Pentax users don't like him... all 2 of them


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> This is not the sensor gap for me, I'm waiting for the more than the R6, less than the R5 camera. No, that's not the R....Still, this (sort of ) reminds me of the return to the 1D dual body setup, one for sports/journalism and one for studio/landscape. When you dis that thought, remember how I wrote 'sort of'.



Canon never really stopped the duality of a offering a high resolution camera for studio/commercial/landscape work and another flagship for sports/action/PJs. The 22 MP 5D Mark III was introduced the same year the 21 MP 1Ds Mark III was discontinued with the introduction of the 18 MP 1D X (which superseded the 16 MP 1D Mark IV).

In reality, the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV replaced the 1Ds series as Canon's premier high resolution FF camera. From the 5D Mark III on, the AF system used the same hardware as the 1D X series (with a few more sports oriented options included in the 1D X Mark II firmware). Since the 1Ds was much more likely to be used in studio/commercial environments that don't present the extreme types of environmental and high usage stresses that the 1D and 1D X bodies were subject to when used by photojournalists, sports/action photographers, etc. the 5D series didn't need quite the same durability and weather resistance as the 1D/1D X series has for most users. Not to mention that by the 5D Mark IV, durability and build quality was getting very close to that of the older 1D and 1Ds series bodies, just without the built-in grip/vertical controls/higher capacity battery.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

jvillain said:


> It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.



When you crop and then enlarge the crop to display at the same size as the original full image, you give away depth of field in the same way as if you had used a crop sensor from the same distance with the same focal length to begin with. The higher your enlargement ratio (between the sensor size and the display size), the easier it is to see the same amount of blur as projected by the lens, and the lower your depth-of-field. Blur that still looks sharp at smaller enlargement ratios can be seen as blur when you enlarge it enough. That's what the illusion of depth-of-field is all about.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

jam05 said:


> It's just March. Canon never releases cameras in an Olympic year early in March. Most often it's June. So you have to wait. You'll see a lot more leaks in April and May. And then in June, Bam! Same as last year, but right before the opening ceremonies. Canon always has the perfect timing. Reason every other manufacture either tries to release quickly or make a mistake and wait. Canon ruled the marketing in 2020. Heat or no heat, it was all about the R5. The entire second half of 2020. And now it's chatter all about "Active Cooling". The bar set by Canon.



Go back and recheck history. The 1D X was released in March, 2012 before the 2012 Summer Games. 

The 1D X Mark II was *supposed* to be released in March/April as well, but production problems pushed it to June, when the first bodies were reserved for those who would use them at the 2016 Summer Olympics.

The 1D X Mark III was released in February 2020, just before the 2020 Olympics actually happening in the summer of 2020 began to be in doubt.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> As someone who still shoots with real MF, in 6x7, in all honesty I think the “medium format look” is everywhere now. What is, or was the medium format look ? It’s an expression from film days and was the result of noiseless, smooth, well defined and pin sharp images, often with very shallow dof if portraits and the subject bang in focus. It was always much easier to accurately focus a MF camera than it was 35 mil due to the size of the viewfinder. We have all that now with even a crop digital camera, so IMHO the “MF look” is ubiquitous today.
> However cramming 100mp into a FF sensor will create undesirable side effects. If someone really needs 100mp I think they’d be better served with a larger format. When resolving detail a long way off and very small, so the likes of landscape photography, diffraction will begin to impact on the visible IQ at around the f/11 mark, and I’m guessing shot noise (photon noise) will be quite apparent in the likes of skies at native output. Not that that’s a big problem but some people won’t like it.



On the other hand, the larger the sensor and the lower the needed enlargement ratio to get to a specific display size, the easier it is to make a lens that can resolve highly enough to take advantage of the resolution of a high density sensor. 

If a lens for a 645 camera (56x42 mm frame size) can resolve 50 lp/mm, to get the same resolution per image height at the same display size out of a 135 format camera (36x24 mm), I need a lens that can hit 87.5 lp/mm!


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.


We had Casio Gz'one phones we bought in 2010. Finally got a letter from our mobile provider in 2019 that the phones would no longer be supported starting 2020. Forced to upgrade.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Most 5DS/R reviews were quite negative. "Only for studio" was a popular claim. Curious, as it beat the "all-rounder" 5DIII in almost every aspect imaginable. Camera was also damaged because the original Adobe RAW profile was extremely poor leading to heavy clipping of whites and blacks - and thus a perceived lack of DR. Finally, reviewers did not understand the optical properties of handheld induced blur leading to claims that it was more difficult to hand hold the 5DS/R than other cameras. Some of these misunderstandings linger.


 
Those things and also a failure to understand that viewing a 50MP at 100% magnification is a much higher magnification than viewing 24MP images at 100% magnification. The 17.14µm² pixel of a 5Ds R enlarged to fit a single screen pixel is more than 2.25X the magnification used to enlarge a 39µm² pixel from a 5D Mark III to fit the same screen pixel.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

jvillain said:


> It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.


Seriously? You think backing up and cropping gives you the same image? Do you think backing up then cropping (greater magnification) gives you more dof?

Wow, just wow. Now I can see who Canon are going to sell these things to...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

macrunning said:


> I'm not a PC guy. Definitely a Mac guy. Not going to 'build' a Mac for $600. I'm not knocking PCs, just been using Mac for the last 25 years.



There's a BIG difference between a $600 homebuilt (what you said) and a $1,600 homebuilt (what he said).


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Lenses are designed to project a flat image. Of course, it can't be perfectly flat, but they can come close by throwing more elements into the lens.
> 
> Put in a curved sensor and all of that extra design becomes a detriment. Are there going to be lenses coming out that _don't_ correct a curved focal surface to a plane, so that this sensor will work properly? If so how long will it take before every lens someone might want comes in a curved version? How much kvetching will there be over how slow they come out?



Not only that, but the radius of curvature would need to be different for each focal length...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.
> 
> But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.
> 
> ...



What was the subject of that 8' x 5' Perspex? Consumers don't care that much about optical image quality. For them it's all about what the photo is a picture of.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I often find myself really unhappy with images that my clients absolutely love. It’s important to remember that the vast majority of paying clients are not technical enough to discern what we see as errors. They have the benefit of being able to enjoy an image for what it is, and not sit there and pick it apart from a technical perspective. As photographers, there is such a thing as good enough, and we need to remember that we don’t decide good enough if there is a paying customer. They do.



Yep.

Consumers select images based on their content, not on their absolute image quality.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> 5Ds/sR file at 48", with no cropping, is only 180 ppi. That's actually still pretty good, but short of saturating what a modern photo ink jet can put to paper. I think anyone doing 48" or larger prints would benefit. Whether or not it's needed or requested by the viewer/buyer/client is a separate question.



Who does 48" inkjet prints? I get them printed on real photo paper for anything over 4x6 or 5x7. LOL!


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Just speaking personally, I have no interest in a 100 MP camera. One reason is due to some very rough and general comparisons I made a couple years ago between my R in crop mode (less than 12 MP) and my M5 (24 MP). Shooting hand held and taking pics of real life objects (not test charts). In my first comparison, I was using an old Canon EF 100-300mm L lens. There was no noticeable difference in my shots between the two cameras. Some of my shots had more resolution with one or the other, most were essentially the same. It occurred to me that the most important factor was not the sensor MPS, but on how still I was holding the camera. Later I tried the same comparison, but with the Canon EF 70-300mm L. In this case, the 24 MP sensor did perform a slight bit better, but I needed to pixel peep at 80-100% to see any difference. This sort of confirmed what some reviewers said when Sony (if I remember correctly) released the A7 (24 MP) and A7R (36 MP). Some reviewers said that hand held, they could not see a difference in resolution between the two cameras - they needed a tripod to get the benifit of the extra MPs.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons of shooting hand held with this new 100 MP camera and the 45 MP R5. Will there actually be any noticeable difference? Until I see that type of comparison, I will be skeptical that the 100 MPs isn't more of a marketing gimmick than a real noticeable jump in real world shooting resolution. I hope, quite frankly, that my skepticism will be proved wrong.



Many of us use tripods in the "real world" because we're willing to go to the trouble of using them for the benefits they provide.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Define "better suited." 35mm has the most glass, tech, and R&D investment. A 645 (or crop 645) sensor will always have a noise and sharpness advantage over 35mm, assuming similar tech in the sensor stack and equal lenses. But I can easily see someone who needs 80-100mp deciding to go 35mm instead of MF because of the costs, lenses, and tech (stuff like top of the line AF). It happened with the D800 and 5Ds/sR.



Not even equal lenses. FF lenses need to be significantly sharper to get the same final resolution at the same display size.

To get the same final image height resolution at the same display size, a FF lens needs to be able to resolve 87.5 lp/mm to match a 645 lens that can do 50 lp/mm. This is because the 645 image has to be enlarged less than the FF image to be displayed at the same size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

spider-mario said:


> True at the pixel level, but at a fixed spatial scale, it tends to be the opposite because as pixels shrink, their input-referred read noise at base ISO tends to shrink faster than (the square root of) the number of pixels from which to add the read noise grows. (At high ISO, it tends to be the opposite.)
> 
> For example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Sony ILCE-7M3_14,Sony ILCE-7RM4_14
> 
> ...



All of that assumes the light field has the same intensity from one side of the sensor to the other. That may or may not be the case depending on subject matter.

Doing astro work, for example, means very small points of light that are much brighter than the areas surrounding them. With such a use case, full well capacity does matter when adjacent sensels surrounding it are getting much less signal than the single (or two, or four) sensels which they are surrounding.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> I did meant A7R II.
> The comparison is straight to the point - two cameras sold in the same time to the market to the same group of people. and Nope Canon did not catch up fast. Their DSLR sensor was lagging by more than one generation for 3-4 years until EOS system reaches the market. It is long enough that I was seriously evaluating possibility to switch side. There were real doubt that Canon will never be serious about mirrorless as the first few crop models also failed miserably



If you are talking about the EOS M series, it's only the best selling interchangeable lens camera system in the entire world. It just didn't sell well to begin with in North America and Western Europe for a variety of reasons, mainly poor marketing to consumers in those markets.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> What was the subject of that 8' x 5' Perspex? Consumers don't care that much about optical image quality. For them it's all about what the photo is a picture of.


Typical Hawaii beach scape with very under exposed black sand and lava rock in the bottom corners. For sure a technical DR challenge that the photographer missed by a mile...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> I haven't read all posts here but I saw you acknowledge that any work that requires heavy cropping benefits from such a sensor. In that post, you also dismissed that, since a crop body would suite that use case even better. But I don't think that captures the whole picture. If you do reach limited photography as well as regular one, getting one body that performs well in both instead of two specialized ones may be worth it.
> 
> With either electronic shutters getting even faster (Like in the Sony A1) or global shutters emerging, the only advantage of a crop body becomes sensor price (+ size and weight, if Canon develops a special crop RF lens lineup). With the speed of current electronic shutters from Canon, FPS would remain an advantage. But I think it is fair to assume that will faint in the future.
> 
> ...



One body to replace two works great until you need to shoot with different lenses hanging on both at the same time...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> I haven't read all posts here but I saw you acknowledge that any work that requires heavy cropping benefits from such a sensor. In that post, you also dismissed that, since a crop body would suite that use case even better. But I don't think that captures the whole picture. If you do reach limited photography as well as regular one, getting one body that performs well in both instead of two specialized ones may be worth it.
> 
> With either electronic shutters getting even faster (Like in the Sony A1) or global shutters emerging, the only advantage of a crop body becomes sensor price (+ size and weight, if Canon develops a special crop RF lens lineup). With the speed of current electronic shutters from Canon, FPS would remain an advantage. But I think it is fair to assume that will faint in the future.
> 
> ...


But a ff sensor with the same pixel density of a high resolution crop sensor is going to be compromised in other areas just because it has even more pixels you won’t often use. Things like FPS, more expensive media cards, excessive storage requirements etc etc.

The 5D lI/III plus 7D II era proved how popular a two camera two sensor sized combination was.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.


I was very happy with the 6S. I used it for years. When they came out with the SE I was afraid it might be their last “small” phone for a while. (Not long after I bought it, they came out with the 12 mini, so I needn’t have worried.) Presumably the SE will survive more iOS version upgrades than will the 6S at this point.

As much of a factor as any was that I had got a Apple Card account, and it is way too easy and painless to buy Apple stuff, just a few clicks. I got a decent trade in amount for my old phone, 3% cash back, and 24 months to pay with no interest, and the SE didn’t cost a lot anyway. So my credit card bill is just unnoticeably higher each month. What I’m afraid of is that late some night I will buy a new Mac or something on a sudden impulse.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, the larger the sensor and the lower the needed enlargement ratio to get to a specific display size, the easier it is to make a lens that can resolve highly enough to take advantage of the resolution of a high density sensor.
> 
> If a lens for a 645 camera (56x42 mm frame size) can resolve 50 lp/mm, to get the same resolution per image height at the same display size out of a 135 format camera (36x24 mm), I need a lens that can hit 87.5 lp/mm!


But it’s much more difficult, and expensive, to make big glass, that is why some of the best resolving lenses made are on phones.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But it’s much more difficult, and expensive, to make big glass, that is why some of the best resolving lenses made are on phones.



Not more difficult in most cases, just more expensive due to the much higher quantity of materials needed. 

It is more difficult to make a larger lens for the same size format as a smaller lens in terms of aberration correction, etc. But in that case the same magnification ratio is being applied to both lenses to get to a specific display size.

With the larger lens for the larger format, though, the lower magnification ratio needed to get to the same display size decreases the amount of correction needed for many aberrations to get the same performance at a specific display size.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Seriously? You think backing up and cropping gives you the same image? Do you think backing up then cropping (greater magnification) gives you more dof?
> 
> Wow, just wow. Now I can see who Canon are going to sell these things to...


1) He's saying the opposite. The ability to back and crop will give him a different image. That's why he is considering such a camera.

2) He's right. Its elemental optical knowledge. As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane. With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need. I do not do macro myself, but can see how this could be an advantage as much macro work has a very shallow focal plane to work with. Try imagining a gigapixel camera with a hypothetical lens to match. You take a garden shot - and afterwards you could crop down to a bee sitting on one of the flowers. And all of the bee would in perfect focus.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> If you like 24 month refresh cycles you may be better off with Sony rather than Fuji. But then the Sony is only 60mp.........
> P.S. I hated the AE-1



The 24 month Sony cycle is certainly a good thing for Sony owners who upgrade every new model considering the shutter life of the α7 III.









Class action complaint filed in New York alleges Sony isn’t addressing premature a7 III shutter failures


The complaint alleges Sony Electronics Inc. is breaking various New York laws by not providing warranty service on a7 III camera bodies affected by premature shutter failures.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> You can say that again!



I think they already did.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

MrToes said:


> Since the AE1 days, I have gotten married to almost 40 Canon lenses that would be nearly impossible to part with. So I have the ball and chain on me. But I am in need of two body's that have higher resolution than our 5DSR's and have good working shutters. We are on our last leg on one body already ............



Canon will gladly install a brand new shutter assembly in your 5Ds R bodies for around $500 per. It's not like the rest of the camera is junk just because the shutter has reached the end of its life expectancy. 

Do you buy a new car every 100,000 miles to avoid paying a few hundred dollars to replace the timing belt as recommended?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> As a side note, I have to say that I'm not sure what dark magic Canon has employed but I would swear that the 20mp files from my 1Dx III appear to have significantly more apparent resolution than the files from my 1DX II. I'm willing to entertain the notion that it is simply confirmation bias on my part, but then again, it sure doesn't seem like that's the case.



A large part of it is the difference between the respective anti-aliasing filters for each camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd make use of it for high-resolution macro images. And for everything else pretty much.
> 
> And no, absolutely not, a crop RF camera at the same pixel density would be a poor substitute for this because you're losing all that extra area around your central point for tracking the subject both in terms of what you can see through the viewfinder and more importantly, the autofocus AI.
> 
> So even if you ALWAYS crop your images to APS-C, you'll still be better off using a FF 100mpx camera and cropping down. (This is why APS-C will die and the R7 will be a one-off I suspect.)



I strongly disagree.

If _you_ want all of that extra area and the resulting slower processing and larger file sizes, more power to _you_. Have at it. But please stop insisting that what _you_ perceive is best for _you_ is also best for *everyone else*! 

I don't need all of that extra area and the processing speed penalty it imposes. I also don't want the extra data size when archiving the raw images.

Some of us don't seem to have near as much trouble tracking erratically moving targets as much as others of us seem to have. Many of us learned to shoot with both eyes open a long time ago. It helps prevent getting clobbered on the sidelines of field and gym sports as well as allows one to see what is going on outside the narrow field of view in the viewfinder.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

unfocused said:


> From Canon's perspective, "Because I'd like it," is more significant than any solid use case. After all, there are a lot more cameras sold because "I'd like it," than those sold because "I need it."



Yes, and this is becoming ever more the case as the number of full time photographers making a living with their cameras continues to dwindle to a mere fraction of what it was a couple of decades ago.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I would much rather have the subject appear closer in the viewfinder, both for tracking and focus. And I would much rather have a Crop camera with the same pixel density, compared to a full frame 100 MP camera likely costing twice as much.
> 
> I understand the big push towards full frame. I just wonder how many camera buyers are going full frame due to the constant marketing of YouTube reveiwers and influencers and forums like this one that make it seem as if only Full Frame can give you what you really want. As sensors have improved over the years, I have found that the low light advantage of Full Frame is nowhere as important now as it was a few years ago. There are so many advantages for me and what I like to shoot using a crop camera (I shoot MFT) that I just sold my Canon R and lenses. If Canon comes out with some Crop "R" cameras, I will definitely be in the market. And, since I do shoot a lot of sunsets, I will not rule out a new Canon FF camera if it is affordable enough - something in the price range of the Nikon Z5 - or the RP with a newer sensor on par with the current R. If APS-C crop were to die out, that would be a major blow to those of us who are still looking for less expensive and smaller kits. Without the marketing hype, I would have thought FF was far more endangered and APS-C crop was more likely to survive long term.



In my experience, almost all of those I know who use, for example, a Canon 7D Mark II or a Nikon D500 for specific use cases also own full frame cameras that they use for most of the use cases they shoot.

It doesn't have to be only one or the other.

Even if I have a high resolution FF body for other use cases, I'd rather use a crop body with a high density sensor when I know I would have to crop the FF images to less than APS-C size.

Or to put it another way: *I'd rather pay for one very expensive high resolution FF body that I use for jobs that almost always involve relatively few frames per shoot and also pay less for a another high-density APS-C body that I can wear out when shooting thousands of frames per sports/action shoot (than wear one of the two expensive bodies out in only 2-3 years).* When I'm shooting high school (or youth or small college) sports I'm almost always shooting with a 70-200/2.8 on the crop body and a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 (that thing is an absolute TANK that has been smashed into, rained on, bled on, etc. and just keeps on working) on a FF body. I might shoot 200 frames total with the wider angle setup and 2,000+ frames with the "long" body/lens combo.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I often see this argument - but I disagree. People have much higher expectations to all media - Tv, film, video, photo, prints, coffee shop books etc than they used to have. Sure for you family shots and prints its all up to the subject. But show people a pictures of a clear moon today and they will intuitively scan it for the finest detail. Also, look at all the 4K youtube videos and channels out there. Content wise it should make no difference for the producers except it seemlingly does - and so the people behind the channels use a lot of more time and processing power and more expensive equipment to have that upgrade. The fact that recommended size/viewing distances for TV's and video games have reduced dramatically compared to previously says everything. People do stick their noses into our prints today (if there is fine subject detail to be admired).



Some people who tend to be the loudest gearheads have much higher expectations for some forms of media, such as movies/TV programming and home theater screens.

The vast majority of people have made it exceedingly clear by their recent purchasing habits that they are more than happy with the quality of photos they get from their smart phones.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> You can always expand the viewfinder to only show the 1.6 crop area, this way you can nail the focus as you wish but the AF still has the advantage of the expanded area. And as increasingly nailing the focus is going to be down to the camera and not you (especially with fast action) again there's advantage from using FF.
> 
> 
> As I said before, with a FF sensor, and everything else being equal, you have more chance of getting something in focus (using autofocus) than having an APS-C sensor.
> ...



If one is already nailing focus well over 90% of the time using an APS-C sensor, then there's no real need to "increase the chances" by using a FF sensor.

If one is having difficulty nailing focus with todays top APS-C cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II or Nikon 500D, compared to using same generation FF DSLRs, the problem ain't the sensor size...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I agree with your comments regarding the benefits of using FF bodies in crop mode. But you forgot to mention that the APS-C can have a body and lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter. I still miss my M43 Olympus for that reason, and if they'd stayed in business I might have kept it with their latest body & lenses for when I want to go with the smallest & lightest possible, while keeping the R5 & lenses for the best IQ possible. Canon's APS-C could be the same if they focused on that aspect.



Most of the potential buyers of an R7 type camera, like most of the buyers of the 7D Mark II or Nikon D500 have been, are not interested in smaller and lighter APS-C only lenses. They're interested in getting more "reach" out of existing FF telephoto lenses and benefitting from the handling speed performance gains of a cropped sensor camera vs. a FF camera with the same pixel density. That and the lower cost for a body that is going to get a lot of "high mileage" use shooting sports and action.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I know where you're coming from and I think that I will always keep one 5DS body in the future. It's just when you come back from an event like a wedding with 600 to 800 images which will never be printed larger than 17", with maybe an odd canvas at 24" it's a hell of a lot of data baggage. I do have a reasonable work around solution though, and that is writing medium jpgs to the SD card, and full raw to the CF. Then I convert the raws in LR to 24mp TIFF. This way with the exception of the raw upload my workflow is pretty quick and not slowed by the size of the raws. I find that with very accurate exposure the OOC jpegs from the 5DS are pretty good.



Anyone who shoots a 5Ds as their primary body for weddings is a masochist. Maybe for the posed portraits with proper photographic lighting. But for everything else... pure masochism!


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Hey, there's a lot of people out there with a *lot* of disposable income.



That and a lot of people willing to go ass over ears in debt to have the latest and greatest electronic toys.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But a ff sensor with the same pixel density of a high resolution crop sensor is going to be compromised in other areas just because it has even more pixels you won’t often use. Things like FPS, more expensive media cards, excessive storage requirements etc etc.
> 
> The 5D lI/III plus 7D II era proved how popular a two camera two sensor sized combination was.



More like the 5D III/IV and 7D II era. 

5D Mark II was introduced in 2008, one year before the original 7D.
5D Mark III was rolled out in 2012.
7D Mark II came in late 2014.
5D Mark IV came in early 2016.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 2, 2021)

Fischer said:


> 1) He's saying the opposite. The ability to back and crop will give him a different image. That's why he is considering such a camera.
> 
> 2) He's right. Its elemental optical knowledge. As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane. With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need. I do not do macro myself, but can see how this could be an advantage as much macro work has a very shallow focal plane to work with. Try imagining a gigapixel camera with a hypothetical lens to match. You take a garden shot - and afterwards you could crop down to a bee sitting on one of the flowers. And all of the bee would in perfect focus.



Except when you crop you increase the magnification ratio (from image size on the sensor to image at a particular display size) which decreases depth-of-field. It's just like increasing the display size of the exact same image decreases the depth-of-field when viewed from the same distance. Anytime you increase magnification, some blur that looked in focus before will become perceivable as blur.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 2, 2021)

Fischer said:


> 1) He's saying the opposite. The ability to back and crop will give him a different image. That's why he is considering such a camera.
> 
> 2) He's right. Its elemental optical knowledge. As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane. With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need. I do not do macro myself, but can see how this could be an advantage as much macro work has a very shallow focal plane to work with. Try imagining a gigapixel camera with a hypothetical lens to match. You take a garden shot - and afterwards you could crop down to a bee sitting on one of the flowers. And all of the bee would in perfect focus.



My sarcasm alarm is out for maintenance, so I'm not sure if you're serious or not. With the M6II and R5 I'm already starting to suspect I've reached the point where the lens needs to be sharper for better details, not more megapixels on the sensor. 
For the subjects I'm photographing this time of the year I use the MP-E at 1x-2x magnification and F/10-ish. That's already in diffraction territory:





What I can see 100MP being useful for is subjects 'far' away where you can get away with F/4, like butterflies with their wings closed:



That one was at F/8 because I couldn't place the tripod where the sensor would be parallel to the wing, but with better placement F/4 would've worked.

So I'm more interested in a sharper 180mm macro (with IS and less slow AF) and a sharper MP-E than I'm interested in a 100MP body. And I bet those 2 lenses combined would cost *much* less than the body as well


----------



## Fischer (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Some people who tend to be the loudest gearheads have much higher expectations for some forms of media, such as movies/TV programming and home theater screens.
> 
> The vast majority of people have made it exceedingly clear by their recent purchasing habits that they are more than happy with the quality of photos they get from their smart phones.





koenkooi said:


> My sarcasm alarm is out for maintenance


It certainly is. I was not referring to any specific use case. Only giving a general comment on optical effect of increasing DOF by backing up.  (Can see I also have Michael Clack's previous comment quoted - not sure why, but I am only answering koenkooi here)


----------



## Fischer (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Some people who tend to be the loudest gearheads have much higher expectations for some forms of media, such as movies/TV programming and home theater screens.
> 
> The vast majority of people have made it exceedingly clear by their recent purchasing habits that they are more than happy with the quality of photos they get from their smart phones.





Michael Clark said:


> Except when you crop you increase the magnification ratio (from image size on the sensor to image at a particular display size) which decreases depth-of-field. It's just like increasing the display size of the exact same image decreases the depth-of-field when viewed from the same distance. Anytime you increase magnification, some blur that looked in focus before will become perceivable as blur.


Not sure what you are trying to say, but I can tell its irrelevant to my comment. (Also do not know how the double quotes popped up once again - only commenting on the last part?)


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Who does 48" inkjet prints? I get them printed on real photo paper for anything over 4x6 or 5x7. LOL!



I'll take Hot Press Bright over any "real" photo paper I've seen, both for the IQ and the longevity.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Not even equal lenses. FF lenses need to be significantly sharper to get the same final resolution at the same display size.



I basically said this: assuming equal lenses a larger sensor will yield a sharper image ooc. But there are examples of 35mm lenses that are good enough to match the sharpness you might find with an equivalent Pentax or Fuji MF sensor/lens combo.



Michael Clark said:


> To get the same final image height resolution at the same display size, a FF lens needs to be able to resolve 87.5 lp/mm to match a 645 lens that can do 50 lp/mm.



With good lenses in their optimum aperture ranges digital resolution is capped by Nyquist. Even at 50mp on 35mm there are a number of lens/aperture combos that will put the recorded extinction resolution at the Nyquist limit. You can still see differences between better/worse lenses, and could do so even on a 2003 6mp camera, because the contrast of detail (sharpness) will be better with better lenses. But if you're just measuring how much detail will be recorded, it's not hard to match a 50mp MF sensor with a 50mp 35mm sensor. (It's harder to match _with the same contrast_ or sharpness.)

At 100mp I imagine fewer lenses will be able to do this, and there will be more examples where a 100mp 35mm sensor doesn't hit Nyquist while the 100mp MF sensor does. But there will still be lenses that can pull it off.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Except when you crop you increase the magnification ratio (from image size on the sensor to image at a particular display size) which decreases depth-of-field. It's just like increasing the display size of the exact same image decreases the depth-of-field when viewed from the same distance. Anytime you increase magnification, some blur that looked in focus before will become perceivable as blur.



He is correct even taking that into account. Quoting Bob Atkins: _"If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the full frame image."_






Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography


A look at how sensor size affects depth of field. Why do digicams and crop sensor cameras have a greater depth of field thaan full frame 35mm cameras?



www.bobatkins.com





You can confirm by playing around with an online DoF calculator like this one, which takes the required circle of confusion for enlargement into account: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

However, you may end up forced to choose between more DoF or less diffraction.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Anyone who shoots a 5Ds as their primary body for weddings is a masochist. Maybe for the posed portraits with proper photographic lighting. But for everything else... pure masochism!


What do you mean, "shoots a 5Ds" ? I've got two of them !


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.


Wish it was a few dollars over here. I think the last battery cost me about £70 along with the fitting at an iPhone shop. Lasted about nine months and now it's not holding charge very well. Proper screen replacement about £90. But yes I agree it's a lot cheaper than buying a new one which is no better than the old (old) one !


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> However, I think all Pentax users don't like him... all 2 of them



Don't knock Pentax, their new $2000 APS-c DSLR is going to change the face of photography as we know it. 
(Seriously the IQ from that camera will be really excellent for a crop sensor, assuming you get the subject in focus).


----------



## cayenne (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> That and a lot of people willing to go ass over ears in debt to have the latest and greatest electronic toys.


Well, its a free country and people are free to be idiots.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Wish it was a few dollars over here. I think the last battery cost me about £70 along with the fitting at an iPhone shop. Lasted about nine months and now it's not holding charge very well. Proper screen replacement about £90. But yes I agree it's a lot cheaper than buying a new one which is no better than the old (old) one !


I get everything from iFixit and do it myself, the battery with tools is $24.99 and a screen is $59.99. The guide shows you step by step how to do it all and nothing is particularly complicated.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Not only that, but the radius of curvature would need to be different for each focal length...


Interesting thought. That's wouldn't be a problem for primes which could be designed with that in mind, but it would probably be a disaster for zooms which have wide ranges of focal length. Without zooms, you'd be left with a non-removable prime lens (probably for a cheap camera) which would limit customer appeal. But I wonder if they could design zooms to alter the radius of curvature as they zoom? (sounds like a lot of lens design nightmare for the benefit of switching to a curved sensor, which in itself it a design & manufacturing difficulty).


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I get everything from iFixit and do it myself, the battery with tools is $24.99 and a screen is $59.99. The guide shows you step by step how to do it all and nothing is particularly complicated.


You haven’t seen my DIY. When I wire a plug I have bits left over......
Thanks for info though I’ll try that next time. Actually my wife has cracked the screen on her iPhone 8 so maybe I can practice on hers


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> What was the subject of that 8' x 5' Perspex? Consumers don't care that much about optical image quality. For them it's all about what the photo is a picture of.


It’s about both, really. Subject being king.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Wish it was a few dollars over here. I think the last battery cost me about £70 along with the fitting at an iPhone shop. Lasted about nine months and now it's not holding charge very well. Proper screen replacement about £90. But yes I agree it's a lot cheaper than buying a new one which is no better than the old (old) one !


Since Apple paid me a trade-in for my 6S, perhaps they will sell it as a refurb, perhaps in a distant land. It still looked like new and worked perfectly. Or maybe they just recycle the rare elements from the inside and eat the loss as a promotion to sell stuff. At the moment, the will give me $180 as a trade-in for my old iPad, which I got my money’s worth out of many years ago. (It has been to 10 or so countries in that time and saved me from needing to own a laptop.)

When I visited a friend in the Los Angeles area 3 years ago, he had got a new iPhone and needed to send the old one in. But the screen was cracked. We went to a mall and he dropped the phone off at a kiosk where a guy was installing new screens. We shopped around a bit, and picked up the phone on our way out. I don’t recall the price, but it was very small.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 24 month Sony cycle is certainly a good thing for Sony owners who upgrade every new model considering the shutter life of the α7 III.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes once you look deeper into the Sony system it’s not quite the bed of roses that the sensor alone would have you believe. I’m really surprised to see how these cameras age / wear compared with Nikon and Canon, along with the very cheap fittings, failing shutters, delaminating screens, worn finish; they smack of “disposable” to be honest. This and the rapid replacement cycle is probably why the depreciation curve resembles the trajectory of a falling brick.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 2, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> My sarcasm alarm is out for maintenance, so I'm not sure if you're serious or not. With the M6II and R5 I'm already starting to suspect I've reached the point where the lens needs to be sharper for better details, not more megapixels on the sensor.
> For the subjects I'm photographing this time of the year I use the MP-E at 1x-2x magnification and F/10-ish. That's already in diffraction territory:
> 
> 
> ...


Love the Chalk Hill Blue butterfly!


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Not sure what you are trying to say, but I can tell its irrelevant to my comment. (Also do not know how the double quotes popped up once again - only commenting on the last part?)



It's totally relevant to your comment. When you crop and then enlarge, you give up the gain in Depth of field you got by backing up, just like you give it up if you increase focal length after backing up. In the end only two things matter for depth of field: total magnification and aperture. The following factors all affect total magnification: subject distance, focal length, enlargement ratio (sensor size to display size ratio), and viewing distance. If you crop, it's exactly the same as reducing the sensor size *without changing your shooting distance*.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> He is correct even taking that into account. Quoting Bob Atkins: _"If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the full frame image."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're applying what Bob said for one situation to what Fisher is saying for another scenario. When you crop, it's exactly the same thing as reducing the sensor size *without changing your shooting distance*. If you backed up without changing the focal length you gained DoF at the expense of magnification. When you then crop without changing that distance or focal length to increase the magnification, you give the vast majority of that gain right back.

Try Cambridge in Color's Flexible DoF calculator that allows you to press the 'show advanced' button and then enter all of the variables yourself instead of letting DOF Master assume them (often incorrectly) for you. Be sure to use macro shooting distances where the reproduction ratio will approach 1:1. That is, do not use subject distances longer than 4X the lens' nominal focal length.

Bob also says at the link you included:

"If you use the *same* lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and *crop* the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, the depth of field is *IDENTICAL.*" (Which is a bit misleading. The total DoF will be identical, but the distribution of that total DoF between front and rear DoF will be slightly different.)

And while Bob acknowledges that at hyperfocal distances the difference in DoF between the 1.6X sensor and the FF sensor increases well beyond 1.6X, he neglects to observe that as we approach unity (1:1), the opposite happens. The portion of Bob's article that you quoted above is not correct at macro distances where the reproduction ratio begins to approach 1:1, just as he acknowledges it is not correct at distances where the rear DoF includes infinity.

Update: Actually, Bob does acknowledge it much further down in the article:

"Again, this simple analysis only applies at "intermediate" distances, but we have to have that limitation if we want a "simple" formula. It only really breaks down when the lens is focused further than about halfway to the hyperfocal distance or when we get to magnifications near 1:1"


A little bit further he also says:

"I'm sure some people will say, OK, but what if you don't take angle of view into account. What's the relative DOF if you use the SAME lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body?"

"Now you run into the problem of what you are comparing to what. The same lens on the two formats will give you different fields of view, so if you enlarge each image to the same size (say 8x12), you won't have the same print so you really can't compare DOFs. If you crop the 35mm negative to give you the same print as the digital image the answer is easy. The DOF in the cropped 35mm print and digital image print will be exactly the same. You're using the same lens and same size image (cropped 35mm or digital), so you get exactly the same DOF."


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> What do you mean, "shoots a 5Ds" ? I've got two of them !



It means you are a masochist's masochist.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Well, its a free country and people are free to be idiots.



Debt is the antithesis of freedom. Debt takes away potential choices in the future in exchange for choices one made in the past.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It's totally relevant to your comment. When you crop and then enlarge, you give up the gain in Depth of field you got by backing up, just like you give it up if you increase focal length after backing up. In the end only two things matter for depth of field: total magnification and aperture. The following factors all affect total magnification: subject distance, focal length, enlargement ratio (sensor size to display size ratio), and viewing distance. If you crop, it's exactly the same as reducing the sensor size *without changing your shooting distance*.


As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

Fischer said:


> As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".



What you said is quoted and in bold below. If you can't understand how what I've said applies to what you've said, I apologize for not being able to explain it in a way that you can understand.

*"As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane."*

As you move away the subject also gets progressively smaller as projected by the lens onto the sensor. 

"*As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane."*

There's only one distance at which the subject is most in focus. The focus plane has no real depth. Everything further or closer to the camera is blurrier to one degree or another. Exactly how much it is blurred determines if we perceive it as "sharp" or "blurry". 

_There is no magical barrier at the edges of depth-of-field at which everything is equally in focus and beyond which everything is equally blurry._ 

On either side of the singular focus distance, things gradually get blurrier and blurrier until they get blurry enough for us to see that blur. What we call depth-of-field is not an area in which everything is equally in focus. It is an area in which things are not yet so blurry that we can tell they are blurry. Only the actual focus distance is in sharpest focus. Things at the edge of the depth-of-field are blurrier than things at the actual focus distance, but they're not quite blurry enough for us to see them as blurry. Things on the edge just outside the depth-of-field are barely blurry enough for us to tell they are blurry, but they are only marginally blurrier than things just inside the edge of the depth-of-field.

*"With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need."*

When you increase magnification by cropping and displaying at the same size as before the crop, you increase the size of all of the blur in the photo. Parts of the image that didn't look blurry at lower magnification will now be seen as blurry at higher magnification.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I strongly disagree.
> 
> If _you_ want all of that extra area and the resulting slower processing and larger file sizes, more power to _you_. Have at it. But please stop insisting that what _you_ perceive is best for _you_ is also best for *everyone else*!
> 
> I don't need all of that extra area and the processing speed penalty it imposes. I also don't want the extra data size when archiving the raw images.



It's not 2008 any more. Hard disks are cheap, modern computers are pretty damn powerful (My 2013 MacPro is perfectly capable of editing 50Mpx+ images rapidly, and that's an 8 year old machine now.)

You're perfectly fine in doing what you want to do in the way you want to do it, but all I'm saying is that APS-C has no long term future on the R mount, for all the reasons that I mentioned.




Michael Clark said:


> Some of us don't seem to have near as much trouble tracking erratically moving targets as much as others of us seem to have. Many of us learned to shoot with both eyes open a long time ago. It helps prevent getting clobbered on the sidelines of field and gym sports as well as allows one to see what is going on outside the narrow field of view in the viewfinder.



None of this contradicts what I said. You may be getting great shots with an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean your hitrate couldn't improve if the sensor is larger and able to predict/track movement better because of it.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> If one is already nailing focus well over 90% of the time using an APS-C sensor, then there's no real need to "increase the chances" by using a FF sensor.
> 
> If one is having difficulty nailing focus with todays top APS-C cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II or Nikon 500D, compared to using same generation FF DSLRs, the problem ain't the sensor size...



if you're getting 90% with an APS-C sensor and 95% with a FF because of the better tracking capabilities, that might not be worth the investment to you. But that one missed shot that you might have got otherwise...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not 2008 any more. Hard disks are cheap, modern computers are pretty damn powerful (My 2013 MacPro is perfectly capable of editing 50Mpx+ images rapidly, and that's an 8 year old machine now.)
> 
> You're perfectly fine in doing what you want to do in the way you want to do it, but all I'm saying is that APS-C has no long term future on the R mount, for all the reasons that I mentioned.



If APS-C has no long term future in the R mount it is not because of the decreasing cost of storage nor the increased processing ability of newer computers. Those things don't amount to a hill of beans as far as Canon is concerned.

If APS-C has no long term future in the R mount, it will be because Canon thinks there can be more profitability for Canon, Incorporated by not offering R mount APS-C bodies than there can be by offering APS-C R mount bodies. As far as profitability goes, there is a school of thought that says low cost, high performance bodies such as the 7D Mark II or the D500 do not directly generate much profit for their respective makers, but what they do contribute to the bottom line are higher sales of the lenses typical buyers of such cameras tend to use with them. Primarily, these are lenses with good profit margins in the constant aperture Telephoto to Super Telephoto range of lenses.

But who is talking about the long term? We're talking about right now and the persistent rumor that an APS-C 'R7' is on the horizon with high degrees of credibility that we never got regarding rumors of an impending 7D Mark III. The Canon rumor mill has been a wall of total silence regarding a 7D Mark III from somewhere about midway through 2016, when the last word on the grapevine about a possible 7D Mark III was that "it ain't happening", until now.

And who is talking about what Canon will ultimately decide down the road? I don't think anyone here is saying APS-C cameras are positively in Canon's long term plans for the R mount. Only those making the decisions for Canon could possibly know that at this time. Except, of course, Canon could later change its mind as market conditions dictate, so even Canon probably doesn't know for sure what you're so confident has to be the only possibility due to the cost of storage and the capacity of computer processors. 

We're simply saying we would prefer that higher end APS-C R mount bodies would be offered and explaining why we would prefer such a choice. That isn't the same thing as saying Canon will offer such bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> None of this contradicts what I said. You may be getting great shots with an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean your hitrate couldn't improve if the sensor is larger and able to predict/track movement better because of it.



The only advantage of a FF body over an APS-C body in terms of AF performance is the more precise measurement enabled by the wider mirror of a FF DSLR vs. an APS-C DSLR which allows a wider semi-translucent area for the main mirror and a wider secondary mirror behind the main mirror that allows the resultant wider baseline available to the dedicated PDAF sensor array. It has nothing to do with a larger sensor being able to predict/track movement better because a larger sensor has no ability to predict/track movement better. Even if it did, it wouldn't make a difference if the subject is always within the center 42% of the frame that is the same size as an APS-C sensor.

With MILCs, that advantage totally disappears along with the mirrors and the dedicated PDAF sensor array.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> if you're getting 90% with an APS-C sensor and 95% with a FF because of the better tracking capabilities, that might not be worth the investment to you. But that one missed shot that you might have got otherwise...



Again, you're projecting your own cost/benefit analysis method onto others.

If a 90% hit rate is enough to get twice as many images good enough to be considered "saleable" as I can post and reasonably expect potential buyers to browse through them all looking for their kid without giving up one-third of the way through when they see there are still 876 more images to look at for that game, a 95% hit rate does nothing for potentially increasing sales. It just gives me more usable shots to need to decide not to publish.

Besides, no matter how good my AF hit rate is, that ONE shot is always ruined by the ref that puts his backside right in between my camera and the player exactly at the peak moment of action. Always.


----------



## MarinnaCole (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> If you are talking about the EOS M series, it's only the best selling interchangeable lens camera system in the entire world. It just didn't sell well to begin with in North America and Western Europe for a variety of reasons, mainly poor marketing to consumers in those markets.


By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It has nothing to do with a larger sensor being able to predict/track movement better because a larger sensor has no ability to predict/track movement better. Even if it did, it wouldn't make a difference if the subject is always within the center 42% of the frame that is the same size as an APS-C sensor.


If you always keep your subject in the center of the frame then you're right, there's no difference. But real world, that doesn't happen as often as we'd we like especially with long lenses. When something is moving into your APS-C area from outside of it, of course you're going to get better AF if the camera is already tracking it because it's in the FF area.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, you're projecting your own cost/benefit analysis method onto others.


That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.

One other point though while I'm here about the APS-C vs FF thing, is that the other cost issue is that most photographers don't ONLY do one type of photography. Previously we were limited by technology. The 5D III was't the best camera for wildlife photography, and the 7D II wasn't ideal for landscape (although both were far from terrible at the other.)

What we're seeing with the R5 and beyond is the start of the 'one camera that can do everything very well'. Although An R7 will absolutely be cheaper than the R5S or whatever it's called, will the R5S be cheaper than buying an R7 AND an R5? Probably.

I'm excited about 100mpx cameras even though I probably can't afford one yet - and I'd still probably spend my money on new RF lenses before a new body because even my EOS R is still good enough for almost anything I want to do right now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.
> 
> One other point though while I'm here about the APS-C vs FF thing, is that the other cost issue is that most photographers don't ONLY do one type of photography. Previously we were limited by technology. The 5D III was't the best camera for wildlife photography, and the 7D II wasn't ideal for landscape (although both were far from terrible at the other.)
> 
> ...



The biggest problem with replacing an R5 and R7 with an R5s is when you need to hang two different lenses on each one at the same time...

A 70-200/2.8 on the R7 and a 24-70/2.8 on an R5 at the same time is a lot quicker handling than an R5s with only one lens mounted at any given time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 3, 2021)

MarinnaCole said:


> By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"



I guess it all depends upon whether you consider a particular camera a success or not based on what kinds of YouTube reviews it gets rather than how many units it sells and how much profit it makes worldwide. The YouTubers do what they do to get the most views and thus generate the most income they can from their videos. If that means stirring the pot and criticizing anything the worlds largest seller of cameras offers for sale, that's what they'll do.

I'm not so sure Canon's poor marketing of the initial pieces of the M-series in North America and Western Europe wasn't intentional because they had higher profit margins on lower end DSLRs in the Rebel/xx0D and xx00D lines. It was in Asia where smaller/lighter/cheaper was really catching on with dedicated cameras for "non-photographers" that the M first made its mark - and in so doing made a ton of cash for Canon. The YouTubers still don't get that the M-system is not created nor marketed for anyone interested enough to watch a bunch of talking heads on Youtube trash every camera except the brand that they're a fanboy of.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I guess it all depends upon whether you consider a particular camera a success or not based on what kinds of YouTube reviews it gets rather than how many units it sells and how much profit it makes worldwide. The YouTubers do what they do to get the most views and thus generate the most income they can from their videos. If that means stirring the pot and criticizing anything the worlds largest seller of cameras offers for sale, that's what they'll do.
> 
> I'm not so sure Canon's poor marketing of the initial pieces of the M-series in North America and Western Europe wasn't intentional because they had higher profit margins on lower end DSLRs in the Rebel/xx0D and xx00D lines. It was in Asia where smaller/lighter/cheaper was really catching on with dedicated cameras for "non-photographers" that the M first made its mark - and in so doing made a ton of cash for Canon. The YouTubers still don't get that the M-system is not created nor marketed for anyone interested enough to watch a bunch of talking heads on Youtube trash every camera except the brand that they're a fanboy of.



And many here don't get that either.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You're applying what Bob said for one situation to what Fisher is saying for another scenario. When you crop, it's exactly the same thing as reducing the sensor size *without changing your shooting distance*.



This is the relevant text from the post which started the discussion, by jvillian:

_It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. *Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in.* That alone would make it worth while fore me. _

He is correct. Slap a 100mm macro on FF and fill the viewfinder with a big bug. Now slap that 100mm on a crop camera. *The bug will be larger than the viewfinder.* If you back up to get the same exact framing as with the FF, you will have more DoF. That is exactly what Bob Atkins was describing.



Michael Clark said:


> If you backed up without changing the focal length you gained DoF at the expense of magnification.



Technically yes, but the whole point is that you do not need as much magnification for a subject that fills the FF sensor when you're working with an APS-C crop. You can back up a bit, get more DoF, and still have good detail if you're working with higher pixel densities. That's true whether you're using an actual crop camera, or cropping a high resolution FF file.



Michael Clark said:


> Try Cambridge in Color's Flexible DoF calculator that allows you to press the 'show advanced' button and then enter all of the variables yourself instead of letting DOF Master assume them (often incorrectly) for you.



It doesn't change anything. The "advanced options" only allow you to ask _will this be acceptable at X arbitrary print size?_ The relationship between the two (1.6x more DoF at 1.6x the distance) remains the same. *Note:* their calculator has a rounding error somewhere. You can get it to report 2x the DoF or 1x with extreme print sizes. You can also create situations where the reported Total Depth of Field value does not match the difference in the reported near/far values.



Michael Clark said:


> Be sure to use macro shooting distances where the reproduction ratio will approach 1:1.



Again, this doesn't change anything. A subject that fills the FF sensor at 1:1 spills over an APS-C crop at 1:1. *If what you want is to capture the entire subject then you have to back up with an APS-C crop.* At which point you have less than 1:1 magnification, but more DoF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 4, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> This is the relevant text from the post which started the discussion, by jvillian:
> 
> _It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. *Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in.* That alone would make it worth while fore me. _
> 
> ...



From further into the same Bob Atkins article you cited:

*"Again, this simple analysis only applies at "intermediate" distances, but we have to have that limitation if we want a "simple" formula. It only really breaks down when the lens is focused further than about halfway to the hyperfocal distance or when we get to magnifications near 1:1"*


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It means you are a masochist's masochist.


 Yes well there's some truth in that.

However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photograph weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.

So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future !


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes well there's some truth in that.
> 
> However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photographing weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.
> 
> So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future !


Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.


People almost always look at these things from their own perspectives and don't fully embrace other peoples perspectives.

The cost of storage for many is comparatively modest, but for high volume shooters it can very quickly get out of hand. I know of a guy who shoots with 1 series cameras and sells big prints amongst a lot of regular print and digital output. His lowest shutter count body, of three, is over 300,000 in three years, his highest was well over 400,000. So he is at 1,000,000 RAW files in three years just off his main bodies, he often uses remotes and second and third shooters. I know of one event where he had 15 cameras shooting over three days.

I worked for an event shooting company a couple of times and they used ten to fifteen photographers in different sets and expected groups to be staged and shot within five minutes. They would be processing at least 3,000 shots an evening, over a three day event they might be processing 20,000 images.

But those are a couple of pro situations, now the R5 can shoot 45mp at 20fps even amateur wildlife and sports shooters can rack up thousands of images in a day.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 4, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.


In my case I certainly value my time more than the cost of the storage. 

I presume I now have shares in Western Digital


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 4, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....


Nah, small pixel = low DR (limited photon collection capacity). Sharpness on pixel level only with a lot of light and very fast shutter speeds. Quick kick-in of diffraction blur at smaller apertures. All those limitations are ruled by physics. But don't be worried, its images will be not worse than a those of a 20 MP camera in many standard settings (based on much bigger files, of course).


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 4, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> It doesn't change anything. The "advanced options" only allow you to ask _will this be acceptable at X arbitrary print size?_ The relationship between the two (1.6x more DoF at 1.6x the distance) remains the same. *Note:* their calculator has a rounding error somewhere. You can get it to report 2x the DoF or 1x with extreme print sizes. You can also create situations where the reported Total Depth of Field value does not match the difference in the reported near/far values.



Anyone who thinks the sum of two rounded numbers is more correct than the sum of the actual extended numbers that is then rounded after adding them together doesn't understand what a rounding error is.

Is one-third plus two-thirds more accurately expressed as:

0.33 + 0.66 = 0.99

or

0.3333333333333333 + 0.6666666666666666 = 0.9999999999999999

which is then rounded to 1.00?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 4, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes well there's some truth in that.
> 
> However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photograph weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.
> 
> So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future !



Or they can use the R6 instead... at least for many parts of the event.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 4, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.



I just picked up a 12TB WD Elements external HD for 180+tax at New Egg. That's only $15/TB. It was a one day sale. That still doesn't mean I like needing an entire closet just to store all of my archival drives. (And another at an offsite location if I'm being as careful as I should.)


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> People almost always look at these things from their own perspectives and don't fully embrace other peoples perspectives.
> 
> The cost of storage for many is comparatively modest, but for high volume shooters it can very quickly get out of hand. I know of a guy who shoots with 1 series cameras and sells big prints amongst a lot of regular print and digital output. His lowest shutter count body, of three, is over 300,000 in three years, his highest was well over 400,000. So he is at 1,000,000 RAW files in three years just off his main bodies, he often uses remotes and second and third shooters. I know of one event where he had 15 cameras shooting over three days.
> 
> ...



I expect HD storage costs are pretty low on the list of his expenses though even for that amount of photography.

A million photos is around about 25TB, or at most $1200 a year in HD storage costs assuming you mirror everything onto two drives for safety. A bit more if you have a RAID system, but that cost would be spread over multiple years. 

The cost of HD storage is falling faster than the rise in raw file sizes


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 5, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Nah, small pixel = low DR (limited photon collection capacity). Sharpness on pixel level only with a lot of light and very fast shutter speeds. Quick kick-in of diffraction blur at smaller apertures. All those limitations are ruled by physics. But don't be worried, its images will be not worse than a those of a 20 MP camera in many standard settings (based on much bigger files, of course).


Then explain the DR performance of the A7RIV please


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Anyone who thinks the sum of two rounded numbers is more correct than the sum of the actual extended numbers that is then rounded after adding them together doesn't understand what a rounding error is.



Did you even read what I wrote? Because your snarky commentary has nothing to do with what I described or witnessed.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> From further into the same Bob Atkins article you cited:
> 
> *"Again, this simple analysis only applies at "intermediate" distances, but we have to have that limitation if we want a "simple" formula. It only really breaks down when the lens is focused further than about halfway to the hyperfocal distance or when we get to magnifications near 1:1"*



Photograph a focus test chart with your 5D4 and 7D2, same lens and aperture, back up to preserve framing. See what you get.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Nah, small pixel = low DR (limited photon collection capacity).



The highest DR 35mm sensors at DxO and PtP are high pixel density sensors. At DxO the top 9 spots are held by high density sensors.



justaCanonuser said:


> Sharpness on pixel level only with a lot of light and very fast shutter speeds.



This has not been my experience at 50mp, and I don't hear 90D or M6 mark II owners complaining at even higher pixel density.



justaCanonuser said:


> Quick kick-in of diffraction blur at smaller apertures.



And for a few stops beyond that you'll still see IQ gains.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Photograph a focus test chart with your 5D4 and 7D2, same lens and aperture, back up to preserve framing. See what you get.



you do it at macro (1:1) distances and see what you get.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I expect HD storage costs are pretty low on the list of his expenses though even for that amount of photography.
> 
> A million photos is around about 25TB, or at most $1200 a year in HD storage costs assuming you mirror everything onto two drives for safety. A bit more if you have a RAID system, but that cost would be spread over multiple years.
> 
> The cost of HD storage is falling faster than the rise in raw file sizes



Cost of storage media isn't everything. The time to properly manage all of that data is the real clincher. You can't just copy files to an archive drive and bury it. You must periodically check the drive, and the files on it, to insure they are still viable. Otherwise there's no point in considering them a backup.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I expect HD storage costs are pretty low on the list of his expenses though even for that amount of photography.



A lot of folks expect they understand all facets of issues that they don't deal with themselves. They think they know all of the answers when they don't even have a clue what half of the questions are.

How many customers do you have who expect that as part of what they paid you for photographic services, you will maintain copies of the images you produced for them?

How many customers have a contract with you that specifically states that you will maintain such copies and provide them if needed for a certain period of time? One year? Three years? Five years? Ten years?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> Did you even read what I wrote? Because your snarky commentary has nothing to do with what I described or witnessed.



That's exactly what you wrote.

You claimed Cambridge's DoF calculator is inaccurate because a number rounded from the end result of an equation that used numbers extended to many more significant digits during all of the calculations does not agree with the sum of two numbers that were rounded before being added together. Anytime one uses a rounded number at a step in a calculation, the result becomes less accurate. When one adds two rounded numbers together, the sum of those two numbers has the potential to compound the variation by up to 2X as much as the variation between each number and the number, carried out to all significant digits, that each was rounded from.

The front DoF and rear DoF displayed by both DoF Master and Cambridge are rounded numbers. Adding those two rounded numbers together can increase the variation between the rounded number and the actual solution for total DoF carried out to all significant digits. The total DoF for Cambridge is a number rounded after the more precise result of internal calculations using numbers extended to more significant digits is calculated. The total DoF for DoF Master is apparently the sum for the two rounded values for front and rear DoF, if DoF Master always displays a total DoF that is the exact sum of the two rounded numbers displayed to show front and rear DoF.

Claiming a number rounded at the last stage of a calculation is wrong because it is not equal to the sum of two numbers which were rounded before they were added together demonstrates a total lack of understanding of which number is actually more accurate.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> The highest DR 35mm sensors at DxO and PtP are high pixel density sensors. At DxO the top 9 spots are held by high density sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then one must ask what DxO's methodology for testing DR is and what they are actually measuring. (Hint: it's super top secret).

If DR is tested using scenes that have uniform brightness, then sensel size shouldn't matter, because the total number of photons increases at the same rate as the total area of the sample size. A sensor with photosites four time as large (2X wider and 2X taller) will have four times the full well capacity and would also collect four time as many photons _if the light is uniformly distributed_.

The problem with light is that it demonstrates a property know as Poisson distribution in which the exact distribution of photons within a light field is random. As the intensity of the light (thus the sample size per sensel) increases, the distribution becomes more uniform due to the laws of probability: as the size of the sample is increased the cumulative results of randomness will be more uniform. As the intensity of the light (the sample size per sensel) decreases, the distribution becomes more random. It's still the case, though, that if a scene being measured is illuminated very evenly, then the number of photons falling on each sensel will be more uniform than if a scene contains very dark areas with bright point sources of light in the middle of those dark areas. Something like the night sky, for instance. Or a test bench that projects microscopic points of light of varying intensity through a lens to a sensor.

Let's then say that one sensor does more on-die analog noise reduction than another before the signal is converted to binary numbers by the ADC. If we are measuring DR using point sources of light surrounded by very dark areas and the sensor with more aggressive analog NR eliminates the weakest point sources of light (such as the dimmest stars or the lowest intensity points of light projected on our test bench) in the field of view along with Poisson distribution noise, then that sensor will score better when using certain methods of measuring noise and thus measuring DR (where DR is defined as the difference between the noise floor and full saturation). This doesn't necessarily mean it actually has higher DR than another sensor that does not eliminate as much Poisson distribution noise prior to the ADC, it just means it's a bigger "star eater" which makes it look like it has a lower noise floor that it actually has. Will this result in cleaner images when one pushes the shadows? Absolutely it will. Does that mean the result more accurately depicts the actual scene that was photographed? No it does not. Quite the contrary. Does the sensor that produces the artificially "cleaner" images actually have higher DR than if it left the dimmest details in the scene along with more Poisson distribution noise? Nope.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> you do it at macro (1:1) distances and see what you get.



Sorry it's not an AF chart. It's a bottle of Listerine at 45 degrees.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> That's exactly what you wrote.
> 
> You claimed Cambridge's DoF calculator is inaccurate because a number rounded from the end result of an equation that used numbers extended to many more significant digits during all of the calculations does not agree with the sum of two numbers that were rounded before being added together.



It wasn't off by a small amount which would be the case with the type of rounding you describe. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it had been. It was off by a much larger factor but only in specific test cases. Now add the cases of extreme print sizes (small or large) where the calculator gives clearly wrong answers across all three fields. That's what leads to my suspicion of a rounding error *in the formula,* not in the final presentation.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Then one must ask what DxO's methodology for testing DR is and what they are actually measuring. (Hint: it's super top secret).











DXOMARK camera sensor testing protocol and scores - DXOMARK


For our DxOMark camera sensor reviews, we measure the image quality performance only of camera sensors that are capable of capturing images in RAW format, and we do this before demosaicing or any JPG processing has taken place. You can read more about the DxOMark approach to image quality...




www.dxomark.com





You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100.

As for full well capacity: as I recall it was in one of the threads of this forum that someone pointed out electronic noise does not scale in a linear fashion. So while a larger pixel has greater FWC, a smaller pixel can have a wider total range with lower noise at the floor.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> you do it at macro (1:1) distances and see what you get.



Here's a 2nd example. I don't believe the first one actually started at 1:1. I'm adapting a Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 macro and I have to use the right adapters/tubes to get 1:1. (Lens is natively 2:1.)

All samples, first post and this one, were shot wide open. Mouthwash bottle at a roughly 45 degree angle. I racked out the lens to 1:1 and adjusted camera distance to get the b into focus. Then I moved back 1.6x, focused on the b using the lens, cropped to the 1.6x view and enlarged. Screen shot of the relevant section 2-up in PS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> DXOMARK camera sensor testing protocol and scores - DXOMARK
> 
> 
> For our DxOMark camera sensor reviews, we measure the image quality performance only of camera sensors that are capable of capturing images in RAW format, and we do this before demosaicing or any JPG processing has taken place. You can read more about the DxOMark approach to image quality...
> ...



I've read that plenty of times. It does not reveal DxO Mark's actual testing methodology for determining the noise floor that informs how they say, "This sensor has 13.7 EV dynamic range as tested and 14.2 EV when normalized to an 8 MP size (or whatever size it is to which they normalize). Just like it does not reveal, for instance, how different factors are weighted to arrive at a sensor's overall single number "Score".


dtaylor said:


> Here's a 2nd example. I don't believe the first one actually started at 1:1. I'm adapting a Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 macro and I have to use the right adapters/tubes to get 1:1. (Lens is natively 2:1.)
> 
> All samples, first post and this one, were shot wide open. Mouthwash bottle at a roughly 45 degree angle. I racked out the lens to 1:1 and adjusted camera distance to get the b into focus. Then I moved back 1.6x, focused on the b using the lens, cropped to the 1.6x view and enlarged. Screen shot of the relevant section 2-up in PS.
> 
> View attachment 196712



When you say you moved back 1.6X, from where on your camera/lens did you measure your original distance to the "b" and from where did you measure that distance times a factor of 1.6?

Not to mention, as anyone can clearly see, the DoF of the second image is narrower than the first as the edges have much less contrast on the second image than they do in the first. Though in all fairness, it looks like the second image has other factors making the entire field blurrier as there is less overall contrast, even in the center of the field. Camera motion/shutter shock, perhaps?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100.



Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it more aggressive use of NR prior to analog-to-digital conversion? Just because an image is cleaner after being pushed 5 or 6 stops doesn't necessarily follow that the result is an indication of higher honest DR. (Why that is even important is beyond me - if I couldn't get closer than 5-6 stops to desired exposure when shooting, I'd have tossed all of my cameras in a dumpster a looooong time ago.) It may just be an indication of more aggressive NR. There's a reason many Sony sensors are known as "star eaters".


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 5, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> It wasn't off by a small amount which would be the case with the type of rounding you describe. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it had been. It was off by a much larger factor but only in specific test cases. Now add the cases of extreme print sizes (small or large) where the calculator gives clearly wrong answers across all three fields. That's what leads to my suspicion of a rounding error *in the formula,* not in the final presentation.



Please cite me a specific test case from Cambridge's flexible DoF calculator where the differences between the sum of the front + rear DoF and the stated total DoF is of by more than a small amount attributable to rounding error. Please include all of the variables entered.

When you say the calculator "gives clearly wrong answers across all three fields" upon what authority do you base that claim? Because it doesn't agree with another DoF calculator? You do realize there are different standards for what is considered "acceptable" blur?

Back in the days when most prime lenses had DoF scales on them (of varying accuracy to, _at best_ one or two significant digits), different manufacturers used different standards for calculating DoF. Many assumed the "standard" 8x10 print was being viewed at a distance of 12" (Imperial system countries) or 20 cm (metric system countries) [there's your first difference that will affect results - 20cm is roughly 9.5", not 12"] by a person with 20/20 vision. Zeiss (or maybe it was Leitz?), for example, assumed the viewer had 20/15 vison and thus had a more stringent standard than those that assumed 20/20. This resulted in the acceptable circle of confusion being 1/1730 of the film's diagonal, rather than 1/1500 of the film's diagonal. For the 135 format, which measures 36x24 mm, 1/1730 gives us an acceptable CoC of 0.025 mm. 1/1500 yields an acceptable CoC of 0.030 mm (actually 0.029 mm, but, hey, it's DoF, which is always at best an estimate).

Modern cameras like the Fuji X-M1 display an estimated DoF in the camera's viewfinder. Yet as many users have noted, the DoF indicated in the viewfinder and the DoF indicated by various DoF calculators are all different for the same lens on the same camera from the same distance using the same aperture. DoF comparisons only have any meaning when they are all based on the same standards and formulae. If DOF calculations are based on the what Bob Atkins referred to in the article you linked as the "simple formula", then we must also acknowledge that it will be far less accurate as subject distances approach the extremes of the hyperfocal distance or unity.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I've read that plenty of times. It does not reveal DxO Mark's actual testing methodology for determining the noise floor that informs how they say, "This sensor has 13.7 EV dynamic range as tested and 14.2 EV when normalized to an 8 MP size (or whatever size it is to which they normalize).



DxO is looking for a SNR of 18%.



Michael Clark said:


> Not to mention, as anyone can clearly see, the DoF of the second image is narrower than the first as the edges have much less contrast on the second image than they do in the first.



This is both false and an indication that you might not actually understand what DoF is. Worse, you are still insisting you are right despite two real world examples, any number of online DoF calculators, and countless online tutorials (if you search) talking about the DoF advantages of framing macro with smaller formats (Which is the same as backing up and cropping with a high density FF sensor.) Is the whole world, including the laws of physics in my bathroom, wrong?

I'm done. Either try it yourself, or keep believing that moving back and cropping does not increase DoF.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it more aggressive use of NR prior to analog-to-digital conversion?



It's not a measurement of anything, it's the actual files pushed and loaded so you can visually compare them at different pushes (+0 through +6ev). The industry is not using special secret analog NR that's undetectable by PtP in high density sensors but ignoring it in low density sensors.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The problem with light is that it demonstrates a property know as Poisson distribution in which the exact distribution of photons within a light field is random.


A fish market? It is Avril, after all.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 6, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> The highest DR 35mm sensors at DxO and PtP are high pixel density sensors. At DxO the top 9 spots are held by high density sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I am not sure about the secret alchemy behind DxO rankings, they recently had to admit that they gave the 1D-X III a too bad ranking. What you summarize is what I said from another perspective. I said that a high MP camera delivers about the same results like a 20 MP camera in most settings. This doesn't exclude that in some settings with a lot of light and a fast, open lens, a high MP camera certainly can deliver much more detail (e.g. in lab tests with optimum conditions). IMO on-sensor pixel binning would be a smart solution to such sensor designs, so you could switch between higher and lower resolutions on the hardware level.

I should say that I am editor of a German physics magazine, and we recently published a two parts series about smartphone camera technology. One of the authors was an engineer from Zeiss. I just summarized in my posting what I learned from this series about the limitations of sensors with very small pixels - and as a physicist, the core messages didn't surprise me. If you imagine a pixel like a bucket, and light like water, smaller buckets have less capacity until they are filled. That's an easy to understand image for the dynamic range limitations of small pixels, for instance. Basically, those authors state, that high MP smartphone cameras are designed as selling point for marketing. 

Now, camera makers go the same way, but of course they follow the demand of a share of the camera market, so it is economically logic. If Canon makes enough customers happy - why not? Fortunately, and wisely, they also offer with the R6 a camera that is with 20 MP close to a very sweet spot of 35mm sensors. I've seen recently lab test results of different new ML FF cameras in a German photozine, and the R6 boasted with quite impressive DR and low light performance.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 6, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Well, I am not sure about the secret alchemy behind DxO rankings,



While PtP has a different standard and therefore reports a different final value for "photographic dynamic range", their results confirm DxO's (similar graphs and relative performances). And both result sets line up pretty well with what you can visually inspect in DPReview's comparison tool with RAW converted/pushed samples.



justaCanonuser said:


> I said that a high MP camera delivers about the same results like a 20 MP camera in most settings.



It delivers better results (more detail and superior sharpness) in most settings. There have to be severe limiting factors at play to bring a higher resolution sensor 'down to' a 20-24mp one. Whether or not the improvements are relevant for a particular purpose (subject, view size, audience) is an entirely separate question. But the improvements are there most of the time.



justaCanonuser said:


> I should say that I am editor of a German physics magazine, and we recently published a two parts series about smartphone camera technology. One of the authors was an engineer from Zeiss. I just summarized in my posting what I learned from this series about the limitations of sensors with very small pixels - and as a physicist, the core messages didn't surprise me. If you imagine a pixel like a bucket, and light like water, smaller buckets have less capacity until they are filled.



If you are an editor at a German physics magazine then you know the following: observation trumps theories, expectations, stories, narratives, analogies, hopes, dreams, and desires. *Observation always trumps those things.*

Whatever part FWC has played in the past, whatever part it plays at smartphone scales, we _observe_ that it is not the driving factor of dynamic range in large ILC sensors _at this time, _water buckets be cursed. Perhaps it will be the driving factor again at some point in the future.



justaCanonuser said:


> Now, camera makers go the same way, but of course they follow the demand of a share of the camera market, so it is economically logic. If Canon makes enough customers happy - why not? Fortunately, and wisely, they also offer with the R6 a camera that is with 20 MP close to a very sweet spot of 35mm sensors. I've seen recently lab test results of different new ML FF cameras in a German photozine, and the R6 boasted with quite impressive DR and low light performance.



The R6, while good, has observably worse DR and high ISO than the R5, D850, and A7r IV. Now perhaps the lab in question got different results, and perhaps that difference is worth investigating. But keep in mind the results I speak to are replicated 3x and concur.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 6, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> A lot of folks expect they understand all facets of issues that they don't deal with themselves. They think they know all of the answers when they don't even have a clue what half of the questions are.
> 
> How many customers have a contract with you that specifically states that you will maintain such copies and provide them if needed for a certain period of time? One year? Three years? Five years? Ten years?



All of this is standard stuff. You build all of this time and expense into your operating costs. And, as we've said before right at the beginning, if the big files don't work for you, then don't use it. 

I have two backups of important images on two separate raid arrays, with the critical images (processed, 'keepers') on two different cloud systems. 

For me the biggest cost and expense is sorting out which images to keep and which to throw. The cost equation on this is generally such now that It's simpler to keep almost everything. 

Of course there will be people who will find an APS-C body better suits their requirements than using a FF camera with crop. But all I'm saying is over time that group of people will be smaller and smaller until a point sometime in the future (we're not there yet) that it's not economically viable for Canon to produce them any more.

I mean, there are still people who claim they're never going to move away from a mirror.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2021)

Oh, I severely underestimated the guy I was talking about with three 1DX II's, they were over 1,000,000 actuations each. he now runs five 1DX III's.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2021)

I have to be honest I was intrigued as to what does actually happen at macro distances for dof, framing, perspective etc etc and the differences between crop cameras backed up and ff cameras at 1:1 in actual real life use. As anybody that has a passing interest in macro knows the dof calculators break down at close focusing distances, further, subject to sensor distances do not follow 'the rules' because the focal length of most macro lenses changes a lot at such short distances.

I used a 1DX II and a Canon 100mm L Macro for all the shots, for the 'crop' camera shots I very carefully measured and or cropped to get correct framing etc for the relevant comparison. I used 10x Live View manual focus, no IS, sturdy tripod, 1/200 second ambient (zero light in the exposure) and a single flash bounced off the ceiling in manual mode.

So, common wisdom, take a picture with a ff camera, move back 1.6 times and then use a crop camera, the dof should be 1.6 times the amount, the perspective will be different for three dimensional subjects but the framing should be the same.

Here is a FF shot at 1:1, with the setup I have that is basically 300mm from sensor plane to plane of focus.





So the 'theory' is if I move to 300 x 1.6 = 480mm and use a crop camera (or crop a ff camera it is exactly the same) I should get identical framing. This is what I actually got after the crop and enlargement.




Framing and enlargement are nothing like the same!

So I then wondered how far do I have to move back to get the same framing? As I hadn't set up for that I changed my arrangement so I could very accurately measure the distance I moved the camera back.

Here is the second FF shot.



And here is the crop framed shot to get the same framing, I had to move the camera back only 51mm!





Here is the plane of focus from the FF camera at 100%



Here is the plane of focus from the 'crop' camera at the same magnification.




Personally I do not see a real world dof advantage in these images for the crop camera. I also now know that if I had a crop camera I'd only have 51mm of working distance advantage to get the same framing as the ff camera at 1:1, not the 160mm 'the rules' would imply I should have.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally I do not see a real world dof advantage in these images for the crop camera. I also now know that if I had a crop camera I'd only have 51mm of working distance advantage to get the same framing as the ff camera at 1:1, not the 180mm 'the rules' would imply I should have.



I should have noted when I posted my samples that A) The impact seems less than 1.6 (but certainly not equal, i.e. there is a DoF gain), and B) I'm not sure about the practical advantage. I suppose if you're stacking it might reduce the number of frames you have to take? Hence the comment that started this side discussion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I should have noted when I posted my samples that A) The impact seems less than 1.6 (but certainly not equal, i.e. there is a DoF gain), and B) I'm not sure about the practical advantage. I suppose if you're stacking it might reduce the number of frames you have to take? Hence the comment that started this side discussion.


In your examples I understood you moved back 1.6 times for the crop camera shots, and then just enlarged the resulting image to match the magnification of the ff camera. 

My methodology demonstrated that is not a valid way to get accurate results considering the original premise was to move back with a crop camera to get the same framing as a ff camera and hypothesized you’d get 1.6 times the dof. The 1.6x focus distance is implied by dof calculators that break down at macro distances. Your methodology results in exaggerated differences in the crop cameras favor.

For it to be a valid comparison you need to get the framing the same and in that case the crop camera is not moved back anywhere near 1.6 times, in my case just 28% of that! Or 1.17 x focus distance. This would imply differences in dof to be significantly less than suggested by calculators and that is very much in line with my empirical results.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> In your examples I understood you moved back 1.6 times for the crop camera shots, and then just enlarged the resulting image to match the magnification of the ff camera.
> 
> My methodology demonstrated that is not a valid way to get accurate results considering the original premise was to move back with a crop camera to get the same framing as a ff camera and hypothesized you’d get 1.6 times the dof. The 1.6x focus distance is implied by dof calculators that break down at macro distances. Your methodology results in exaggerated differences in the crop cameras favor.
> 
> For it to be a valid comparison you need to get the framing the same and in that case the crop camera is not moved back anywhere near 1.6 times, in my case just 28% of that! Or 1.17 x focus distance. This would imply differences in dof to be significantly less than suggested by calculators and that is very much in line with my empirical results.


Thanks for your tests, interesting stuff. Some questions: Would focus breathing of the chosen lens be influencing your results? Perhaps why you didn’t need to move back very far? Would the result be different with different lenses?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Thanks for your tests, interesting stuff. Some questions: Would focus breathing of the chosen lens be influencing your results? Perhaps why you didn’t need to move back very far? Would the result be different with different lenses?


Oh there is definitely focus breathing and lens breathing going on, but there is also the fact that the common dof calculations (and therefore calculators) break down at close focus distances. Yes different lenses will have different results.

This isn’t new, the main issue is that at normal focus distances the offset of the lens to the sensor plane is relatively insignificant when compared to the lens to subject distance. But at macro distances the lens to sensor distance can be a significant percentage of the lens to subject distance, indeed it is often greater than the lens to subject distance, this causes the more basic dof calculations to fail.

Another issue is the calculators consider the lens to be a simple lens, that is a single element at the focal distance. Again at normal focus distances the differences between that and the actual nature of a complicated focusing compound lens are insignificant, but at macro distances those differences can be significant percentages of the calculation.

All this to say it is well known that dof calculators and equivalence theories break down at macro distances because of known limitations to the simple calculations. Because I had the gear and time I was just able to actually measure that difference to get a decent comparison.

I wasn’t surprised the example illustrated the problem, which is why I made my initial comment of ‘anybody that thinks moving a crop camera back to get the same framing will give them 1.6 times dof’. I was surprised at the minimal difference in distance you have to move the crop camera back to get that same framing though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> DxO is looking for a SNR of 18%.



They don't reveal how they define the noise floor, which is one of the factors used to compute the S/N ratio. Without that, saying 18% is fairly meaningless.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2021)

stevelee said:


> A fish market? It is Avril, after all.




Siméon Denis Poisson​


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> All of this is standard stuff. You build all of this time and expense into your operating costs. And, as we've said before right at the beginning, if the big files don't work for you, then don't use it.
> 
> I have two backups of important images on two separate raid arrays, with the critical images (processed, 'keepers') on two different cloud systems.
> 
> ...



Of course you do. I certainly understand that. But the one to whom I was replying, who keeps insisting that file sizes don't matter because "storage is cheap" doesn't seem to have a clue that all of the other even exists.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh there is definitely focus breathing and lens breathing going on, but there is also the fact that the common dof calculations (and therefore calculators) break down at close focus distances. Yes different lenses will have different results.
> 
> This isn’t new, the main issue is that at normal focus distances the offset of the lens to the sensor plane is relatively insignificant when compared to the lens to subject distance. But at macro distances the lens to sensor distance can be a significant percentage of the lens to subject distance, indeed it is often greater than the lens to subject distance, this causes the more basic dof calculations to fail.
> 
> ...



With a simple lens, at unity (1:1 reproduction ratio or 1.0X MM) the lens will be 2X the focal length from the imaging plane and 2X the focal length from the subject. In other words, the lens will be exactly halfway between the subject and the imaging plane. The subject will be 4X the lens' focal length, measured when focused to infinity, from the film/sensor plane. 

So yes, there is considerable breathing going on.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 14, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I should have noted when I posted my samples that A) The impact seems less than 1.6 (but certainly not equal, i.e. there is a DoF gain), and B) I'm not sure about the practical advantage. I suppose if you're stacking it might reduce the number of frames you have to take? Hence the comment that started this side discussion.



Look at the correctly produced examples with the same reproduction ratio in both. There is no difference. None.

With the same angle of view and the same final magnification ratio DoF will also be the same.

If actual subject size is AS and displayed subject size is DS, and if the final ratio of AS: DS is the same for both images, DoF will also be the same.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Siméon Denis Poisson​


An impressive guy, even if he sounds fishy.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> In your examples I understood you moved back 1.6 times for the crop camera shots, and then just enlarged the resulting image to match the magnification of the ff camera.
> 
> My methodology demonstrated that is not a valid way to get accurate results considering the original premise was to move back with a crop camera to get the same framing as a ff camera and hypothesized you’d get 1.6 times the dof.


Sorry for the late reply. Came back to this thread for another reason and noticed your reply. I didn't experience the framing differences that you did. You experienced severe focus breathing, something which varies with different lenses. In any case, taking the 1.6x crop from the center gave very similar framing in my test. I didn't have to adjust the distance to be much shorter than 1.6x, nor crop more than 1.6x. 

Perhaps more importantly: if I had cropped more than 1.6x, it would still prove the point. Let's say, with a particular lens and focus breathing, you had to crop 2x to get the DoF gain I saw. That means you could take a mft camera, back up, and get more DoF for the same framing.



privatebydesign said:


> Your methodology results in exaggerated differences in the crop cameras favor.


If I had used a crop camera with that lens and adapter I would have gotten the exact same results. I don't take a position either way as to whether or not the DoF was exactly 1.6x (I didn't photograph something which would allow me to make such a precise measurement), nor as to whether or not the gain is worth it for a macro shooter (i.e. would result in fewer frames to stack). The point of contention was whether or not a crop shooter would get more DoF for the same framing (which would be less magnification), not how much or how useful. And the answer is, of course, yes. Anyone who has ever shot macro with a Nikon 1 or a cell phone, where there is no splitting hairs and the macro DoF gains are very large for a given framing, would find it hysterical that this became a debate.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 28, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Look at the correctly produced examples with the same reproduction ratio in both. There is no difference. None.


A) My test was done correctly but with a different lens. B) There is still a difference in privatebydesign's shots even with the severe focus breathing and much smaller distance change. C) Even if I had performed the test incorrectly and cropped in...say...2x or 3x (I was very careful to crop 1.6x) it would still prove the point. The only thing that would change is one's evaluation of how useful APS-C would be to gain macro DoF versus mft or 1" sensors.



Michael Clark said:


> With the same angle of view and the same final magnification ratio DoF will also be the same.


The same magnification would result in different framing. No one ever said they wanted the same magnification.


----------

