# Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 26, 2022)

> It has been long rumoured that Canon would develop a high-megapixel camera to the lineup. There have been a lot of reports and wishes for something like a Canon EOS R5s.
> Yesterday we posted what to expect from Canon, which lead to some new information about Canon’s plans.
> We have been told that Canon is indeed going to release a full-frame RF mount camera with 100+ megapixels some time in the first half of 2023. The announcement could come later in 2022.
> The Canon EOS R7 had been rumoured for years, and it has finally been announced, so if you’re in the market for 100+ megapixels, hang tight, you will be taken care of.



Continue reading...


----------



## docsavage123 (May 26, 2022)

Storage going to take a hit, as well as wallets and credit cards.


----------



## Kit Chan (May 26, 2022)

I seem to recall there were also rumors of a M7 at the same time as the M50 mkII


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

Oh yes please! I have many questions, but if it comes in closer to price/form factor of R5 than say a 1DX, I'd be very likely to pre-order. To be fair, I may still pre-order if it was more 1DX than R5.


----------



## John Wilde (May 26, 2022)

Canon made an official development announcement of a 120MP DSLR in 2015, so they have been working on high resolution for a long time. 

(Canon currently makes a 120MP industrial sensor, but it's APS-H size.)


----------



## sanj (May 26, 2022)

R1


----------



## djack41 (May 26, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


LOL Maybe we will receive one in 2025! Guess got to discuss something.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 26, 2022)

Just weld it to my Feisol


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Canon made an official development announcement of a 120MP DSLR in 2015, so they have been working on high resolution for a long time.
> 
> (Canon currently makes a 120MP industrial sensor, but it's APS-H size.)


They announced a 120 MP APS-H sensor in 2010, IIRC. They announced its commercial development in a DSLR in 2015, although they never brought it to production. Rather, they simply showed off a prototype at trade shows. It was a 5Ds body with a 120 MP APS-H sensor (maybe the same one eventually put into production for industrial use), shot only at ISO 100 and generated RAW files >200 MB in size. They also developed a 250 MP APS-H sensor.

I doubt we'll ever see another APS-H ILC. But the reason APS-H existed in the first place was that it was the largest sensor that could be made with a single lithography pass (FF sensors need three passes), so using APS-H for sensor technology development makes sense.


----------



## H. Jones (May 26, 2022)

Even at 120mp, 120 would mean a crop mode of 45 megapixels.. That would be one serious camera for wildlife and birding depending on the frame rates available.

I said it in the R7 post, but I think Canon is in a position to give professionals more options for reach/cropping in the form of the R5s for wildlife photographers who need pro features, a fully pro build, and lots of reach.

A 120mp full frame camera that could crop to 45mp at 20 fps could definitely make a lot of people happy. Especially when you consider the need to save on as much space as possible for air travel, you'd have both a super-high-res landscape/full frame camera, and a super-high-res crop camera both in the same body.

It's one of my favorite features of my R5--I'm not personally ever in the market for a crop camera, but the 17mp 1.6x crop mode is more than adequate for my uses when I can't get close to a subject and need to turn the crop mode on. 45mp in the crop mode would be a whole different story.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2022)

sanj said:


> R1


That depends on what an R1 is. Historically, people who want ultra high resolution don't need extremely rugged cameras. They just don't tend to abuse or buy them. Look at the history of the Canon 1Ds3 and Nikon D3x.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 26, 2022)

What would the DLA be?


----------



## takesome1 (May 26, 2022)

Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.

400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?


----------



## bbasiaga (May 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That depends on what an R1 is. Historically, people who want ultra high resolution don't need extremely rugged cameras. They just don't tend to abuse or buy them. Look at the history of the Canon 1Ds3 and Nikon D3x.


My initial guess is it could be a dual announcement with the R1 and this High MP body. A new flagship ground breaking with QPAF, 60mp at full speed/30fps, etc, along side a ground breaking 5 series type body with 100+ MP. Would be a huge marketing moment for Canon. 

Brian


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 26, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> My initial guess is it could be a dual announcement with the R1 and this High MP body. A new flagship ground breaking with QPAF, 60mp at full speed/30fps, etc, along side a ground breaking 5 series type body with 100+ MP. Would be a huge marketing moment for Canon.
> 
> Brian


I don’t agree. Canon creates enough buzz and things to talk about with one camera. As with the R3, add hundreds of development announcements (at least it feels like it) and teaser, and they’re the talk of the town for months…

Why should they take the publics focus of one camera by introducing two at one time? Canons marketing would not let that happen.


----------



## Juangrande (May 26, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Even at 120mp, 120 would mean a crop mode of 45 megapixels.. That would be one serious camera for wildlife and birding depending on the frame rates available.
> 
> I said it in the R7 post, but I think Canon is in a position to give professionals more options for reach/cropping in the form of the R5s for wildlife photographers who need pro features, a fully pro build, and lots of reach.
> 
> ...


I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.


The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

chrysoberyl said:


> What would the DLA be?


f/4.7. A 20 Mpx 1" sensor camera has the pixel density of a 146 Mpx FF and a DLA of f/3.92.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.


True, and it does have some advantages. However, I like the wider field of view of FF and can't be bothered to use crop mode but I should do.


----------



## LensFungus (May 26, 2022)

Great! This will allow me to take 100+ mp of my empty wallet.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That depends on what an R1 is. Historically, people who want ultra high resolution don't need extremely rugged cameras. They just don't tend to abuse or buy them. Look at the history of the Canon 1Ds3 and Nikon D3x.


Nature photographers love rugged high resolution cameras to get extra reach while out in the wild.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

I don


AlanF said:


> Nature photographers love rugged high resolution cameras to get extra reach while out in the wild.


Absolutely agreed - I do a lot of landscape photography while hiking and camping and I'll take all the ruggedization I can get. I've been using a 5DIV and anecdotally I have seen plenty of camera failures from other people shooting with me, but so far I've been lucky enough to avoid it. I'm firmly in the potential buyer camp for this, but if it has less ruggedization than a 5D IV then I'm probably not buying in. My nightmare is having a failure on day 3/10 of a big hike and having no way to replace the body. That peace of mind is worth a higher price point to me. I'm just hopeful this won't be a gripped body as the size and weight becomes a different issue then.


----------



## HikeBike (May 26, 2022)

I'm guessing R1 with DIGIC X2.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don’t agree. Canon creates enough buzz and things to talk about with one camera. As with the R3, add hundreds of development announcements (at least it feels like it) and teaser, and they’re the talk of the town for months…
> 
> Why should they take the publics focus of one camera by introducing two at one time? Canons marketing would not let that happen.


They have deviated from that in the past though - the R5 and R6 were launched together as were R7 / R10, and m6II / 90D to name a few. I think when there is reason to announce two bodies together (i.e. similar bodies that could arguably be cross-shopped) they have been less weary of announcing two at a time. If their plan is to go back to a top-end line divided between high resolution and high frame rate I could see them announcing them together. 

With that said, it could also be the "jack of all trades and best at everything" R1 of rumors past - meaning there is only one camera to announce. It's all speculation at this point though.


----------



## H. Jones (May 26, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.



Bigger buffer, smaller filesize means less memory used, easier to compose the shots the way you'd actually like them at 17mp. There's several reasons I'm a big fan of having crop mode. I have it mapped to a button on the back of the camera so that I can quickly snap between 1.6x crop and full frame if my subject gets close enough for full frame to be useful.
A lot of times when I'm photographing wildlife or breaking news, you're just so far away from the subject that you'd be wasting quite literally dozens of gigabytes on empty space. It's a lot faster and easier when you're in crop mode to cull 2000 images of a distant subject at 17mp than have to hassle with 2,000 45mp images that only are using a small portion of the frame. 

If we're talking about a 120mp camera, that's going to be a *serious* difference in filesize. That's easily saving hundreds of gigabytes of empty space and making the buffer far more usable, no matter what the buffer is.

Add to that, it's easier to find smaller subjects in the frame at 1.6x and easier to keep a focus point over a bigger subject in the viewfinder than trying to use even the spot focus point on a tiny subject. 

It doesn't make sense for a lot of people to use, but for the times when a 1.6x crop camera makes sense to begin with, it definitely has its place. I personally enjoy the ability to use the camera as a full frame 45mp camera, and then in the instances when I need the reach, turn it into a 1.6x crop camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> Absolutely agreed - I do a lot of landscape photography while hiking and camping and I'll take all the ruggedization I can get. I've been using a 5DIV and anecdotally I have seen plenty of camera failures from other people shooting with me, but so far I've been lucky enough to avoid it. I'm firmly in the potential buyer camp for this, but if it has less ruggedization than a 5D IV then I'm probably not buying in. My nightmare is having a failure on day 3/10 of a big hike and having no way to replace the body. That peace of mind is worth a higher price point to me. I'm just hopeful this won't be a gripped body as the size and weight becomes a different issue then.


So are you saying that the build of an R5 would be good enough and the build of the R3, complete of the gripped body, would be too much? Because that's what I believe, especially if we're talking about a 100MP FF sensor. That's also where the market has been since the 5D2 and Nikon D800.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> I'm just hopeful this won't be a gripped body as the size and weight becomes a different issue then.


I suspect this will be an R5-type body, like the 5Ds.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> So are you saying that the build of an R5 would be good enough and the build of the R3, complete of the gripped body, would be too much? Because that's what I believe, especially if we're talking about a 100MP FF sensor. That's also where the market has been since the 5D2 and Nikon D800.


I don't disagree with you. I don't own an R5 but under the premise that its weather resistance is equivalent to a 5D IV, I'd be satisfied with that as I haven't gone past what my 5DIV can manage despite several full-on soakings. With that said, I wouldn't complain if it had R3-equivalent weather sealing (if there was no grip), however, and I'd be open to paying more for it. Obviously weather sealing is somewhat difficult to quantify independently, until you realize you don't have enough of it. For instance, I have no way of knowing if my gear could have taken worse soakings/sand blastings than I have given it or if I've just been lucky and already gone past what's reasonable for the camera. Regardless, my use has shown that the 5D series sealing has thus far been sufficient for my needs.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> I don
> 
> Absolutely agreed - I do a lot of landscape photography while hiking and camping and I'll take all the ruggedization I can get. I've been using a 5DIV and anecdotally I have seen plenty of camera failures from other people shooting with me, but so far I've been lucky enough to avoid it. I'm firmly in the potential buyer camp for this, but if it has less ruggedization than a 5D IV then I'm probably not buying in. My nightmare is having a failure on day 3/10 of a big hike and having no way to replace the body. That peace of mind is worth a higher price point to me. I'm just hopeful this won't be a gripped body as the size and weight becomes a different issue then.


I'm paranoid about equipment failure and take at least two of everything with me on safaris etc. It helps that my wife also enjoys taking nature photos so we have two sets of lenses, bodies, chargers, cables etc. Hikes are a different matter if you are carrying everything on your back. These R bodies are so small and light that if you can afford it you can take two with you.


----------



## navastronia (May 26, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Bigger buffer, smaller filesize means less memory used, easier to compose the shots the way you'd actually like them at 17mp. There's several reasons I'm a big fan of having crop mode. I have it mapped to a button on the back of the camera so that I can quickly snap between 1.6x crop and full frame if my subject gets close enough for full frame to be useful.
> A lot of times when I'm photographing wildlife or breaking news, you're just so far away from the subject that you'd be wasting quite literally dozens of gigabytes on empty space. It's a lot faster and easier when you're in crop mode to cull 2000 images of a distant subject at 17mp than have to hassle with 2,000 45mp images that only are using a small portion of the frame.
> 
> If we're talking about a 120mp camera, that's going to be a *serious* difference in filesize. That's easily saving hundreds of gigabytes of empty space and making the buffer far more usable, no matter what the buffer is.
> ...



This won't be a popular opinion, but I just started using the crop mode on my EOS RP to get more mileage out of my primes, since I don't own any zooms at this time. Even at 10 MP, it's enough for my work, and it's quite helpful.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'm paranoid about equipment failure and take at least two of everything with me on safaris etc. It helps that my wife also enjoys taking nature photos so we have two sets of lenses, bodies, chargers, cables etc. Hikes are a different matter if you are carrying everything on your back. These R bodies are so small and light that if you can afford it you can take two with you.


Good choice for safari I'd think. I've long debated taking a second body and with R series cameras I'd consider it in the right scenario, though admittedly cost will become an important factor in that decision-making. I think with a high-resolution body as the main camera, and for the backup a lower cost, light weight (but takes the same battery/mount as the main camera) body would suit my need. I'd likely only use the high resolution body, but having a second would ease some stress, and maybe facilitate the odd time lapse while shooting something else. I'd even considered an M6II with an adapter as a backup to my 5DIV, but the different battery would be the kicker. 

With that said, I have a friend who always has two bodies and only one is really every used by him. I've watched him loan that backup out no less than 4 times in the last 12 months to other people experiencing one issue or another. Two A7RIV failures, one D850 falling off a tripod and into a lake, and one D810 with moisture in the body. I'm not sure if it's ever saved his bacon, but there are a number of other thankful photographers out there for him carrying a backup!


----------



## AEWest (May 26, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don’t agree. Canon creates enough buzz and things to talk about with one camera. As with the R3, add hundreds of development announcements (at least it feels like it) and teaser, and they’re the talk of the town for months…
> 
> Why should they take the publics focus of one camera by introducing two at one time? Canons marketing would not let that happen.


Well they did announce the R5 and R6 together, as well as the R7 and R10 so there is precedent.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> and





neuroanatomist said:


> The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.


The readout is also faster. Hence the R5 can record downsampled 4k/60P in crop mode. For wildlife, it is a tradeoff. The crop mode has smaller files and potentially a faster frame rate, but also harder to keep the bird in the frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> I'd even considered an M6II with an adapter as a backup to my 5DIV, but the different battery would be the kicker.


I'm happy with the M6, but that's one area where the MkII would be better – in-camera USB charging means no need to pack another adapter.


----------



## Sharlin (May 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> True, and it does have some advantages. However, I like the wider field of view of FF and can't be bothered to use crop mode but I should do.


It occurs to me that a FF mirrorless with a crop mode could optionally support viewfinder images that are neither 100% sensor coverage nor the exact cropped frame but something inbetween, so you'd get both some magnification and some context of what's happening just outside the frame.


----------



## SNJ Ops (May 26, 2022)

100+ megapixels on FF would be a 1st and A LOT for the sensor size. Be interesting to see what ISO performance is like and which of the RF lenses can resolve those megapixels and resolve them well.
Just hope for potential buyers there’s no AA filter.


----------



## jam05 (May 26, 2022)

So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year. Let hope Canon doesn't ruin it with a cheap crappy LCD on the rear of it.


----------



## SNJ Ops (May 26, 2022)

jam05 said:


> So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year.


Medium Format is a sensor larger than full frame plus Fuji’s GFX system has the ability to shoot up 14 and 16bit images which gives the RAW files a lot more colour information.


----------



## entoman (May 26, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.
> 
> 400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?


If there is sufficient *demand* for an ultra hi-res camera, you can bet that Canon (etc) will meet that demand.

But I doubt very much whether there are many of us who actually *need* 100MP.

A few maybe, but not many, IMO.


----------



## entoman (May 26, 2022)

jam05 said:


> So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year. Let hope Canon doesn't ruin it with a cheap crappy LCD on the rear of it.


Nope. It will be marketed as FF.

To justify the "MF" tag, it would need to have a larger sensor.

And a larger sensor would require another complete line of lenses...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> But I doubt very much whether there are many of us who actually *need* 100MP.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> View attachment 203900


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> ...it's easier to find smaller subjects in the frame at 1.6x and easier to keep a focus point over a bigger subject in the viewfinder than trying to use even the spot focus point on a tiny subject...


This. When photographing smallish subjects at a distance, the focus accuracy is significantly improved by using the crop mode.


----------



## gmon750 (May 26, 2022)

Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.

I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.

I have two Promise RAID arrays (R8 and R6) and I'm seriously replacing all the drives in one tower to the largest 20TB drives I can get to keep me happy for the next few years.

How would one even manage 100MP images?


----------



## jvillain (May 26, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Even at 120mp, 120 would mean a crop mode of 45 megapixels.. That would be one serious camera for wildlife and birding depending on the frame rates available.
> 
> I said it in the R7 post, but I think Canon is in a position to give professionals more options for reach/cropping in the form of the R5s for wildlife photographers who need pro features, a fully pro build, and lots of reach.
> 
> ...


I am sure there are some people that would take a $10,000 camera out in the wild to shoot birds. But with a massive recession coming on I am not sure there will be that many.


----------



## davidcl0nel (May 26, 2022)

gmon750 said:


> How would one even manage 100MP images?


If you don't make a lot of pictures, this is no problem.
I have my R5 now for 16 months, and the pic counter (starting with 000) is now at about 8000. And of this I have 5k remaining on my hard drive. I delete some already in camera, another during selection. I will delete some in the future too, so storage is no issue here.
But if you store all pictures or do it professional then maybe you might have a bigger problem, yes... but if you are professional, somebody pays for it, right? ;-)


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

gmon750 said:


> Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.
> 
> I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.
> 
> ...


I'd cull I think. I really don't shoot that many frames per year and when I do shoot, I shoot the same scene over and over again to fine tune composition and wait for conditions to change/improve. At the end of the day, a 60-100 image block of the same scene could easily boil down to like 5 raws that actually get used. I could toss the rest of them without much regret. Obviously that doesn't fit all shooting styles, but I'd happily sacrifice my unused images to increase quality in the few I keep. With that said, even without discarding my unused frames, the file size generated by the PSBs from working on these images far far outweighs the thousands of unused images sitting on my hard drives. I'm honestly more concerned about processing power and RAM for how big those PSBs would be with the underlying images being 100+mp.


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2022)

Currently, Leica are developing new improved lenses for their M11's 60 MP, on the basis of already extremely sharp ones.
What about Canon?
100 MP need extreme definition lenses, like RF 1,2/50-85. But the rest of the RF line???
Which lenses can actually take FULL advantage of the 100 MP?


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Currently, Leica are developing new improved lenses for their M11's 60 MP, on the basis of already extremely sharp ones.
> What about Canon?
> 100 MP need extreme definition lenses, like RF 1,2/50-85. But the rest of the RF line???
> Which lenses can actually take FULL advantage of the 100 MP?


Not even an f/1.2 will take full advantage of the sensor! What matters is that the overall resolution depends on the resolution of the sensor times the resolution of the lens. So, increasing the resolution of the sensor increases the apparent resolution of any lens.


----------



## CanonGrunt (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> Oh yes please! I have many questions, but if it comes in closer to price/form factor of R5 than say a 1DX, I'd be very likely to pre-order. To be fair, I may still pre-order if it was more 1DX than R5.


I really hope it’s like the R3 form factor.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2022)

gmon750 said:


> Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.
> 
> I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.
> 
> ...


Are you using C-RAW? The file sizes are about the same as from a 5DIII, with no perceptible loss of quality.


----------



## amorse (May 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Currently, Leica are developing new improved lenses for their M11's 60 MP, on the basis of already extremely sharp ones.
> What about Canon?
> 100 MP need extreme definition lenses, like RF 1,2/50-85. But the rest of the RF line???
> Which lenses can actually take FULL advantage of the 100 MP?


They did release a list of recommended lenses for the 5DSR, so maybe they'll do the same here? I kind of wonder if they'd launch this with the rumoured tilt shifts because as a landscape use case I'd expect that depth of field needs would quickly push many images into the DLA territory. Those TS-Es could be the answer to "how do I maximize image quality with this many pixels in play"


----------



## RobbieHat (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> I don't disagree with you. I don't own an R5 but under the premise that its weather resistance is equivalent to a 5D IV, I'd be satisfied with that as I haven't gone past what my 5DIV can manage despite several full-on soakings. With that said, I wouldn't complain if it had R3-equivalent weather sealing (if there was no grip), however, and I'd be open to paying more for it. Obviously weather sealing is somewhat difficult to quantify independently, until you realize you don't have enough of it. For instance, I have no way of knowing if my gear could have taken worse soakings/sand blastings than I have given it or if I've just been lucky and already gone past what's reasonable for the camera. Regardless, my use has shown that the 5D series sealing has thus far been sufficient for my needs.


I have shot the R5 in 40 mph sandstorms and in -32 degree F weather for three hours. It performed well in both conditions. No issues, failures or shortcomings. If a 100 mp R camera has equivalent weather sealing I am all in.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> They have deviated from that in the past though - the R5 and R6 were launched together as were R7 / R10, and m6II / 90D to name a few. I think when there is reason to announce two bodies together (i.e. similar bodies that could arguably be cross-shopped) they have been less weary of announcing two at a time. If their plan is to go back to a top-end line divided between high resolution and high frame rate I could see them announcing them together.


True, they have announced two cameras at once in the past, but not two true flagships. 

The R6 was announced alongside the R5, but the development announcement (8k etc) were solely about the R5. Imho, I guess the R6 was announced alongside the R5 because theirs was a pressing need for a more affordable and capable camera. At the point of the announcement, canon had a „flawed“ R, many people were unhappy with it. It was accompanied with the cheap RP and the headscratcher Ra. It was make or break for canon, so a huge announcement was needed. 

The two-flagship theory sounds intriguing, but in the past those two flagships were announced separately. Imho, the R6 is not a flagship, so a double flagship announcement would be a premier. 

Furthermore, I believe that the flagship R1 will be more like the A1/ Z9. Underneath canon will have a flagship made for speed (R3) and the high MP camera (R5s or so). If, and only if the high MP camera cracks 100mp, I could imagine an R1 with about 70-75mp.


----------



## northlarch (May 26, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Bigger buffer, smaller filesize means less memory used, easier to compose the shots the way you'd actually like them at 17mp. There's several reasons I'm a big fan of having crop mode. I have it mapped to a button on the back of the camera so that I can quickly snap between 1.6x crop and full frame if my subject gets close enough for full frame to be useful.
> A lot of times when I'm photographing wildlife or breaking news, you're just so far away from the subject that you'd be wasting quite literally dozens of gigabytes on empty space. It's a lot faster and easier when you're in crop mode to cull 2000 images of a distant subject at 17mp than have to hassle with 2,000 45mp images that only are using a small portion of the frame.
> 
> If we're talking about a 120mp camera, that's going to be a *serious* difference in filesize. That's easily saving hundreds of gigabytes of empty space and making the buffer far more usable, no matter what the buffer is.
> ...


This is the best explanation I’ve seen for using the 1.6x crop in camera for wildlife. You make good points about having all that data that’s essentially empty anyway with distant subjects. And having the larger subject for tracking. Makes sense to me. Personally I think a faster buffer was more of an issue back in the day; even higher MP cameras move data plenty quickly for my use with moving critters, but to each their own.

It’s difficult to wrap my head around having a camera that can capture a ton of data and not using it—being stuck with 17MP on that photo forever. The FOMO of “what if” that subject suddenly fills the frame while flying towards me or another subject quickly darts into the scene, and I can’t switch back quickly enough for that photo of a lifetime. Perhaps a refinement that experienced wildlife shooters evolve to—not there yet personally.

I’ve generally been against the in-camera crop with the R5 but you’ve shifted my perspective a little and going to give it a whirl now. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 26, 2022)

24 megapixels at full frame are already on the high end of what is acceptable for me. I would love to see the other direction: A 12 megapixel full frame stacked BSI sensor. Or even a monochrome sensor.


----------



## entoman (May 26, 2022)

amorse said:


> I'd cull I think. I really don't shoot that many frames per year and when I do shoot, I shoot the same scene over and over again to fine tune composition and wait for conditions to change/improve. At the end of the day, a 60-100 image block of the same scene could easily boil down to like 5 raws that actually get used. I could toss the rest of them without much regret. Obviously that doesn't fit all shooting styles, but I'd happily sacrifice my unused images to increase quality in the few I keep. With that said, even without discarding my unused frames, the file size generated by the PSBs from working on these images far far outweighs the thousands of unused images sitting on my hard drives. I'm honestly more concerned about processing power and RAM for how big those PSBs would be with the underlying images being 100+mp.


It's good practice to set a personal limit on the number of photos that one keeps. Since switching to digital in 2002, I've been shooting around 15-20,000 images per year, but I decided long ago to restrict the total number of images in my collection to a maximum of 25,000. It pays to review older images regularly and compare them to current work, throwing out anything that is sub-par, and raising the overall standard.

I'll typically take around 30 shots of each subject on a given occasion, trying to get the best possible composition, lighting etc. After downloading to my computer, I compare images side by side in LR, whittling them down until I'm left with just 2 or 3 shots of each subject that get edited. After editing I then compare the final results with any similar but older shots that I have, and usually find that the latest "version" is better, so the older ones get thrown out.

If I had a 100MP camera (I don't want or need one, 45-50MP is enough for me), I'd still keep to a maximum of 25,000 images, but upgrade my storage capacity.


----------



## masterpix (May 26, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Well, such a camera will be great for modeling, portraits, landscape, architecture, however, it will have lower ISO and FPS, which will, unless resolved, a draw back for any action photography.

I just wonder, about the lenses such camera will need to have to produce as sharp images. Cause, as seen before, less pixels still can tolerate optical errors, and images that are sharp on the R6 are not so on the R5 just because the R5 has double the number of pixels on the sensor.


----------



## masterpix (May 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> 24 megapixels at full frame are already on the high end of what is acceptable for me. I would love to see the other direction: A 12 megapixel full frame stacked BSI sensor. Or even a monochrome sensor.


Well if you go to 12MP.. it should be global shutter..

However, I don't think any camera manufacturer will go to that direction, as today, the minimum sensor size is 20MP-24MP (the R6 and the R3 respectively), where the main purpose is to increase electronic shutter to reach 30FPS or even more. 

On the other hand, you can always use the camera as B/W. It is not something you can't do right now.


----------



## masterpix (May 26, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> If you don't make a lot of pictures, this is no problem.
> I have my R5 now for 16 months, and the pic counter (starting with 000) is now at about 8000. And of this I have 5k remaining on my hard drive. I delete some already in camera, another during selection. I will delete some in the future too, so storage is no issue here.
> But if you store all pictures or do it professional then maybe you might have a bigger problem, yes... but if you are professional, somebody pays for it, right? ;-)


Do as I did, external disks of 4Tb... still hold about 15K RAW images...


----------



## noms78 (May 26, 2022)

Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor? 

For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?


----------



## Sharlin (May 26, 2022)

noms78 said:


> Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
> 
> For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?


More resolution is always better, even if you hit somewhat diminishing returns due to diffraction. Diminishing returns does not mean _no_ returns.


----------



## NKD (May 27, 2022)

Nice! Hope I am finally in a situation I can viably switch to my first mirrorless R1 or R5s.
Quite happy using my 5dsRs on tripod still for arhictecture and still life. Would be nice to ditch the tripod in some situations to speed up workflow & shoot movin subjects for a change. Would be nice to ditch the tripod & bump the iso to a usable 400-800+ with IS & maintain a decent amount of HRD to push shadows and pull down highlights in post!


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.


This all comes down to whether a R5 equivalent sized body can handle the heat dissipation. 
Canon's Digic X is powerful but not as efficient as Sony's processors. This is looking purely at battery life, CIPA numbers and a smaller body. The A1 doesn't handle the same bandwidth needed for 8kraw and hence CFe Type B cards but it is a smaller body than the R5. Although the A1 records compressed 8K it is oversampling and compressing via the processor rather than using the bus for higher data flow.

I suggest that Canon needs a new/more efficient processor for the R1/R5s. Previous 1DX models have had multiple processors but I don't think that the R1 will be a larger size than the R3 precedent.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

HikeBike said:


> I'm guessing R1 with DIGIC X2.


Agreed


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect this will be an R5-type body, like the 5Ds.


Only if the heat management can be better than the R5


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.


I don't use crop mode in my R5. I crop in post if needed.
Faster frame rate may be possible (and theoretically lower rolling shutter and flash sync) only if the sensor is clever enough to only read the crop portion of the sensor. Do we have any evidence that Canon sensors have done this in the past?

Another reason to use crop mode is that for some competitions, cropping (or at least severe cropping) would not be allowed. When underwater, you can't change lenses but activating crop mode could be one advantage in this case.


----------



## peters (May 27, 2022)

docsavage123 said:


> Storage going to take a hit, as well as wallets and credit cards.


true, but for my work this is simply a non-issue. Video files are SOOOOO much bigger, so it doenst matter to me, if photos are twice the size  I look forward to a higher megapixel canon camera


----------



## peters (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Only if the heat management can be better than the R5


To be fair, in the latest firmware the heat problems are prety well managed. 
4k25 - no problem
4k25 hq oversampled from 8k - 20-30 minutes runtime
4k50 - rarely any problems
4k100 is the most problematic mode, where overheat may happen after 5 minutes. Though I rarely ever need that much of record time.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> 100+ megapixels on FF would be a 1st and A LOT for the sensor size. Be interesting to see what ISO performance is like and which of the RF lenses can resolve those megapixels and resolve them well.
> Just hope for potential buyers there’s no AA filter.


No AA filter would be fine for landscape but wouldn't be okay for portrait and video usage. I know that some people don't use cameras for stills and video but you can't get away with this now. 

12K DCI resolution is 12288 x 6480 for a total of 79,626,240 pixels (~80 MP) which would mean ~102mp stills at 3:2
This fits with the rumour and would be a first for Canon to both have the first 8k MILC and the first 12K MILC


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> This. When photographing smallish subjects at a distance, the focus accuracy is significantly improved by using the crop mode.


I am not following this... Less pixels overall in crop mode means that the processor is not looking at the entire sensor for focus targets but the tracking is only pixel to pixel which wouldn't change from crop or full sensor. Has there been any tests for this?


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

noms78 said:


> Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
> 
> For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?


From what I understand of landscape medium format photographers, they need to focus stack to ensure sharpness front to back because of this issue (DLA and depth of field)


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

peters said:


> To be fair, in the latest firmware the heat problems are prety well managed.
> 4k25 - no problem
> 4k25 hq oversampled from 8k - 20-30 minutes runtime
> 4k50 - rarely any problems
> 4k100 is the most problematic mode, where overheat may happen after 5 minutes. Though I rarely ever need that much of record time.


Agreed but I do find 4k30 HQ and 4K120 to run into problems quickly. Note that generally use these modes underwater and there is a partial vacuum inside the housing meaning less heat conduction. A specialist niche of course. 
The A1 (maybe because of processor efficiencies, lower bandwidth and higher temperature limits) in a smaller body doesn't suffer. The A1 will be the reference body that it is measured against. Canon won't go through the R5 overheating issue again


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not following this... Less pixels overall in crop mode means that the processor is not looking at the entire sensor for focus targets but the tracking is only pixel to pixel which wouldn't change from crop or full sensor. Has there been any tests for this?


I think the context is not that it’s the camera’s focus accuracy that is improved by crop mode, but rather the _photographer’s_ ability to accurately select and track a small subject.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 27, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.



The point of a crop camera is $1500 vs $3800. And cropping the $3800 camera gives you only 17MP vs 32MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The point of a crop camera is $1500 vs $3800. And cropping the $3800 camera gives you only 17MP vs 32MP.


Fine but you don’t seem to understand the point being made, to which you responded.


----------



## DBounce (May 27, 2022)

Oh me gosh… Nikon just got sued by Red for RAW.


----------



## chrisrmueller (May 27, 2022)

I wonder if the plan is to bifurcate the line like the old 1D/1Ds days. Maybe the R1 will share the body of the R3, and the difference comes down to the sensor and processor (high resolution studio camera vs sports/PJ)? I’m excited to see what unfolds.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the context is not that it’s the camera’s focus accuracy that is improved by crop mode, but rather the _photographer’s_ ability to accurately select and track a small subject.


Yes, I would imagine that is the case. It certainly "seems" that the magnified view in crop mode makes it easier to, say, select the eye rather than simply the head. Whether it is the camera or the photographer I don't know.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 27, 2022)

Very exciting thing, although I felt 100mp might be a bit too much for a FF sensor. The diffraction will be showing up at what, f9?
Also as a studio/landscape camera, I'm very interested in the dynamic range of this camera.


----------



## gdanmitchell (May 27, 2022)

This is one of the reasons that I'm continuing to use my (excellent) 5DsR instead of jumping on the (fine) R5. 

I'll be interested to see the characteristics of this cameras when/if it arrives.


----------



## koenkooi (May 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yes, I would imagine that is the case. It certainly "seems" that the magnified view in crop mode makes it easier to, say, select the eye rather than simply the head. Whether it is the camera or the photographer I don't know.


The AF system has 1.6 times fewer rows to process, which speeds things up a bit.


----------



## landscaper (May 27, 2022)

Why has it taken CANON 
8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ? 

So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY

Rumours have it that Fuji and Sony working on 150 MP and 200 MP Models NOW


----------



## Berowne (May 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Currently, Leica are developing new improved lenses for their M11's 60 MP, on the basis of already extremely sharp ones.
> What about Canon?
> 100 MP need extreme definition lenses, like RF 1,2/50-85. But the rest of the RF line???
> Which lenses can actually take FULL advantage of the 100 MP?



As always i refer to the nice contributions of Uncle Rog: 
* Experiments For Ultra High Resolution Camera Sensors 
* More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments 
and Brandon: 
* The 8K Conundrum – When Bad Lenses Mount Good Sensors 

What can we learn in short? Meaningful MTF-Results for a 150Mpx-Sensor are only obtained with measurements in the Range of 200-240 lp/mm. Currently Canon, Sony, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica show us MTF-Charts with max 50 lp/mm. So these Charts are useless, when it comes to the next generation of high-resolution sensors. The question is, whether the lenses you can buy now, are fit for the future sensors and the answer is: superior contemporary primes like the Sony 135 G-Master or the 100 mm Otus are ok. 

Of all the rest we dont know.


----------



## steen-ag (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Agreed


Or 2x digitX


----------



## SNJ Ops (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> No AA filter would be fine for landscape but wouldn't be okay for portrait and video usage. I know that some people don't use cameras for stills and video but you can't get away with this now.
> 
> 12K DCI resolution is 12288 x 6480 for a total of 79,626,240 pixels (~80 MP) which would mean ~102mp stills at 3:2
> This fits with the rumour and would be a first for Canon to both have the first 8k MILC and the first 12K MILC


Such a body would be heading into megapixel territory of Fuji GFX and Phase One. Medium Format aims for still image quality as a priority which is what I think Canon should do in this instance. Increasing the bit depth of the RAW files to 14 would also make quite the statement.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

steen-ag said:


> Or 2x digitX


Sure but that is twice the heat to get rid of. It could distribute the heat more evenly as each would possibly run less than full pace


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The AF system has 1.6 times fewer rows to process, which speeds things up a bit.


I can't find any information about whether the sensor read rate increases in crop mode and hence rolling shutter decreasing. This would show that only the crop lines on the sensor are read vs the full sensor. If the sensor read rate doesn't change from full to crop then the AF system can't be faster - or have I misunderstood?


----------



## Joules (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Faster frame rate may be possible (and theoretically lower rolling shutter and flash sync) only if the sensor is clever enough to only read the crop portion of the sensor. Do we have any evidence that Canon sensors have done this in the past?


The Canon M6 II has a 32.5 MP sensor with 14 FPS shooting, but also features an 18 MP 30 FPS burst mode that uses a small crop. So yes, we know Canon has the ability to only partially read the sensor in order to enhance speed.

I don't think I have seen this feature on the R7 yet, so perhaps the will to implement it isn't there. The R7 did inherit the pre-burst mode from M6 II though, so perhaps they can other features later.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Why has it taken CANON
> 8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ?
> 
> So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY
> ...


Yep, Fuji GFX has a massive market share and Canon should be worried!

Yes, some landscapers have moved to Fuji and it is a nice system but there are no wide angle lenses for it which would be annoying if I was using it. The biggest advantage that I can see is bit depth. Gavin Hardcastle did a video about the GFX vs his Sony crop camera for the same location and there was definitely differences in the shadow detail but he needed to pixel peep to see them.

Canon held the full frame pixel density record for a long time until the Sony ~60mp bodies arrived. Perhaps they will increase further but I would suggest that the market segment for high resolution bodies is relatively small but very important for that community.

It has been only the last few years that 40-50mp cameras have become more "normal" in the market. I'm still adjusting to the R5 from the 5Div but enjoying the difference


----------



## Joules (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I can't find any information about whether the sensor read rate increases in crop mode and hence rolling shutter decreasing. This would show that only the crop lines on the sensor are read vs the full sensor. If the sensor read rate doesn't change from full to crop then the AF system can't be faster - or have I misunderstood?


The AF system could still be faster even if the full image is read. After all, for tracking use cases, the AF system would know that it can rule out searching the motive in the cropped area, resulting in less than half the pixels to be analyzed.


----------



## MrToes (May 27, 2022)

My wallet has been waiting for a long time for this


----------



## Birdshooter (May 27, 2022)

Funny Stuff....
People that want a 100 megapixel camera for Nature photography.... and 30fps... Really ahahahahahaha 30x100 megapixels in a second.
But, maybe you can dummy down that 100 megapixels in crop mode.. another gaffa.... ahahahaha
What are you people smoking?

The magic number of a sports camera would be great at 30 megapixels, coming from someone that actually has owned at least 5 pro bodies.
With the R3 you can shoot a few thousand frames in a few seconds (which I own) and some of you think it's no problem to shoot at that frame rate with 100 megapixels. That tells me a lot about what it's like to dream the impossible dream.... I think that was a song or something... and your knowledge of photography.


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Funny Stuff....
> People that want a 100 megapixel camera for Nature photography.... and 30fps... Really ahahahahahaha 30x100 megapixels in a second.
> But, maybe you can dummy down that 100 megapixels in crop mode.. another gaffa.... ahahahaha
> What are you people smoking?
> ...


"With the R3 you can shoot a few thousand frames in a few seconds (which I own)"
2000 shots at 30 fps = 67 seconds - "a few thousand frames in a few minutes" is the correct maths. A couple of years ago some would have laughed at the thought of 2000 30 Mpx shots in a minute and they were just as wrong as you are laughing at 30x100 megapixels in a second. I don 't want 30x100 megapixels in a second, but some do and that's their privilege and you have no right to mock them.


----------



## Otara (May 27, 2022)

Someone else probably thinks buying a camera that does 30fps at 24 is pretty silly too. 

Didnt stop you.


----------



## koenkooi (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I can't find any information about whether the sensor read rate increases in crop mode and hence rolling shutter decreasing. This would show that only the crop lines on the sensor are read vs the full sensor. If the sensor read rate doesn't change from full to crop then the AF system can't be faster - or have I misunderstood?


I've seen rolling shutter improvements mentioned in one or two reviews, but I don't recall seeing side-by-side comparisons.


----------



## Del Paso (May 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Not even an f/1.2 will take full advantage of the sensor! What matters is that the overall resolution depends on the resolution of the sensor times the resolution of the lens. So, increasing the resolution of the sensor increases the apparent resolution of any lens.


Even though I fully agree, I still think it would make sense to have the best possible lenses in order to exploit the sensor's potential.
Michelin Pilot Sport tyres are a bit of a waste on a Lada.


----------



## Del Paso (May 27, 2022)

Berowne said:


> As always i refer to the nice contributions of Uncle Rog:
> * Experiments For Ultra High Resolution Camera Sensors
> * More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments
> and Brandon:
> ...


OK, but don't forget the Apo Summicron Leica M lenses...or Canon's RF 50 and 85mm.


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Even though I fully agree, I still think it would make sense to have the best possible lenses in order to exploit the sensor's potential.
> Michelin Pilot Sport tyres are a bit of a waste on a Lada.


Uncle's Rog comments in the first link:
"So What Did We Learn Today?​Well, mostly nothing, but there are a couple of things.
First, let me emphasize again that if we had a 150-megapixel camera and shot today’s lenses on it, the images would have more detail than that same lens on your current 36-megapixel camera."

Putting Michelin Pilot Sport tyres on a Lada is a real investment - it will double the value of the Lada.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 27, 2022)

masterpix said:


> On the other hand, you can always use the camera as B/W. It is not something you can't do right now.


You could, but you lose a lot of light because of the Bayer Filter. Of yourse the Bayer Filter gives you the option to compose your B/W photos out of three channels. So you can decide how dark the sky or the grass get. You lose that option with a monochrome sensor, but in return you get much sharper images and much lower noise. You do not need any demosaicing algorithms to guess the brightness of each pixel based on its neigbours. A normal 24 megapixel camera has 6 million red pixels, 6 million blue pixels and 12 million green pixels. Having 24 million "white" pixels increases the image quality by a lot. That's why Leica and Phase One offer monochrome sensors.


----------



## SNJ Ops (May 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Even though I fully agree, I still think it would make sense to have the best possible lenses in order to exploit the sensor's potential.
> Michelin Pilot Sport tyres are a bit of a waste on a Lada.


Absolutely.. There are some lenses on emount that can’t resolve the max level of detail from the A7RIV’s sensor and that is “only” 61 mp. One such example is my 85mm f1.4 GM, it renders a wonderful image but its soft on the A7RIV even at normal viewing distance on my monitor. Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN however resolves fine detail much much better its actually not even close.

To resolve 100mp+ I hope Canon has already designed their glass to do to.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 27, 2022)

Storage availability has grown much faster than image sizes. 2TB cards are now available. Assuming a 100MP sensor gives a 150MB file size, you can store 13,000 + images on such a card. Computer hard drives have grown as well. My NAS has four 8TB drives and could store a lot of 150 MB images. 8TB drives are common and relatively low cost.


----------



## Del Paso (May 27, 2022)

T


amorse said:


> I don
> 
> Absolutely agreed - I do a lot of landscape photography while hiking and camping and I'll take all the ruggedization I can get. I've been using a 5DIV and anecdotally I have seen plenty of camera failures from other people shooting with me, but so far I've been lucky enough to avoid it. I'm firmly in the potential buyer camp for this, but if it has less ruggedization than a 5D IV then I'm probably not buying in. My nightmare is having a failure on day 3/10 of a big hike and having no way to replace the body. That peace of mind is worth a higher price point to me. I'm just hopeful this won't be a gripped body as the size and weight becomes a different issue then.


That's why I never leave home for longer hikes or trips without a second body. Even a cheap Rebel is better than nothing.


----------



## RobbieHat (May 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Yep, Fuji GFX has a massive market share and Canon should be worried!
> 
> Yes, some landscapers have moved to Fuji and it is a nice system but there are no wide angle lenses for it which would be annoying if I was using it. The biggest advantage that I can see is bit depth. Gavin Hardcastle did a video about the GFX vs his Sony crop camera for the same location and there was definitely differences in the shadow detail but he needed to pixel peep to see them.
> 
> ...


Beyond limited lens selection for the GFX is lack of proper weather sealing. Was on a photo tour in Alaska last winter and one of the photographers with the GFX barely made it our of the gate. The body died in temps just below zero F. The R5 performed admirably down to -32. At least for me as a landscape photographer, I want a camera that is going to tolerate a pretty broad set of environmental conditions. Those conditions are where the magic happen!


----------



## Czardoom (May 27, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Why has it taken CANON
> 8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ?
> 
> So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY
> ...


Seems like a simple answer. Must not have sold that well. If it had sold well, it would have been updated earlier like their other best selling models. Since Canon's market share has been steady, apparently not that many jumped.


----------



## amorse (May 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> T
> 
> That's why I never leave home for longer hikes or trips without a second body. Even a cheap Rebel is better than nothing.


Yeah, I've definitely been gambling. The extra weight has always been my reasoning for going with one body, but on a full re-kit in RF I can find some additional weight savings on the lens and body to make up the difference. My thoughts are when I transition to RF (ideally with this high resolution body) I'd pick up a cheaper R body that takes the same battery to go with it. Time to start saving!


----------



## amorse (May 27, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Beyond limited lens selection for the GFX is lack of proper weather sealing. Was on a photo tour in Alaska last winter and one of the photographers with the GFX barely made it our of the gate. The body died in temps just below zero F. The R5 performed admirably down to -32. At least for me as a landscape photographer, I want a camera that is going to tolerate a pretty broad set of environmental conditions. Those conditions are where the magic happen!


That's really interesting - I wasn't aware that the Fuji MF bodies were so sensitive! I'd written the GFX system off because of the lack of lenses - no really wide and no long ish. Ideally, I'd want flexibility in focal length from maybe ~15mm-400mm covered in my kit, and I just don't see that realistically happening in GFX any time soon.


----------



## Sporgon (May 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Seems like a simple answer. Must not have sold that well. If it had sold well, it would have been updated earlier like their other best selling models. Since Canon's market share has been steady, apparently not that many jumped.


I always find Lens Rental’s annual ‘top ten’ most rented gear of the year lists interesting. There’s never a ‘high resolution’ model of the various camera ranges on it. As someone who’s owned two 5DS cameras for the past five years I can understand why.


----------



## Berowne (May 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> OK, but don't forget the Apo Summicron Leica M lenses...or Canon's RF 50 and 85mm.



Until now Uncle Rog did not test these lenses at 240 lp/mm (or did not show us the results), so we do not _know._ What we know for sure is that most modern high quality primes (whether Sigma or Canon or Leica is completely irrelevant) are able to deliver good 8k results when it is about resolution. And if they can do this, they can do more (Michelin tyres on a Lada), which you can see, when shooting any good prime on a 32 Mpx Crop-Camera, which means 80 Mpx FF. But when we enter the territory way beyond 100 Mpx, the situation changes and this will be exciting.


----------



## InchMetric (May 27, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I really hope it’s like the R3 form factor.


Agreed. I’d even be happy with R5 performance and updates in an R3 form.


----------



## Del Paso (May 27, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Beyond limited lens selection for the GFX is lack of proper weather sealing. Was on a photo tour in Alaska last winter and one of the photographers with the GFX barely made it our of the gate. The body died in temps just below zero F. The R5 performed admirably down to -32. At least for me as a landscape photographer, I want a camera that is going to tolerate a pretty broad set of environmental conditions. Those conditions are where the magic happen!


Thanks for the info, since I was more than mildly interested in a GFX as a landscape camera. Neither the 5 D3, nor the 5 D4, not even the R ever let me down.
Many good pictures are made under "extreme" conditions, whether temperature or humidity. R.I.P. GFX for me.


----------



## jam05 (May 27, 2022)

News flash. Canon itself has now rebuked any and all rumors of the M-series being discontinued. And that the new cameras are NOT for young people. Maybe CR will stop peddling such garbage for another decade. Canon has confirmed what we already know, that the M-series accounts for 30% of all it's sales. It would be a foolish business blunder to discontinues sucha a profitable line of products with nada to replace it. The R10 certainly as we now know can NOT replace the M6 mk 2. Canon doesn't want any of it's ambassadors trumpeting and peddling any of that other nonsense.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fine but you don’t seem to understand the point being made, to which you responded.



I think that person does not understand the point of crop cameras. It won't be a need for crop cameras when high resolution full frame cameras will cost as much as crop ones.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 27, 2022)

jam05 said:


> News flash. Canon itself has now rebuked any and all rumors of the M-series being discontinued. And that the new cameras are NOT for young people. Maybe CR will stop peddling such garbage for another decade. Canon has confirmed what we already know, that the M-series accounts for 30% of all it's sales. It would be a foolish business blunder to discontinues sucha a profitable line of products with nada to replace it. The R10 certainly as we now know can NOT replace the M6 mk 2. Canon doesn't want any of it's ambassadors trumpeting and peddling any of that other nonsense.



Of course, every company says that. Not discontinued until there is a demand - but they won't release new lenses or new bodies (or with very minor updates) until there won't be any demand left.


----------



## [email protected] (May 27, 2022)

One thing I've never really explored much is Canon's diffraction correction that it provides as a post-processing solution, using lens data communicated through the R mount. That always fascinated me, but I've not had much use for it. In this context, it may become more relevant. I wonder how much of a dent something like DLO can make in any introduced diffraction. When first introduced, it required the use of DPP in post. Later, it was included in-camera if you shot JPEG. Wonder if folks have experience with it and can comment.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 27, 2022)

DBounce said:


> Oh me gosh… Nikon just got sued by Red for RAW.


Specifically over patent infringement in ProRes video compression.


----------



## cgc (May 27, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> 100+ megapixels on FF would be a 1st and A LOT for the sensor size. Be interesting to see what ISO performance is like and which of the RF lenses can resolve those megapixels and resolve them well.
> Just hope for potential buyers there’s no AA filter.


As a potential buyer I hope it includes the AA filter (specially the R5 tech-like one). Just because image quality matters me THE MOST. Fortunately, sigma did included the AA filter in its 61MP latest camera, and explicitly mentioned the reasons. All of this AA-filter-removal nonsense started when Leica removed the AA filter because their particular limitations (filter stack thickness causing trouble with their old expensive lens designs) and their expert marketing people finally managed to foo the whole Internet forums about the supposedly advantages.


----------



## Del Paso (May 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> As a potential buyer I hope it includes the AA filter (specially the R5 tech-like one). Just because image quality matters me THE MOST. Fortunately, sigma did included the AA filter in its 61MP latest camera, and explicitly mentioned the reasons. All of this AA-filter-removal nonsense started when Leica removed the AA filter because their particular limitations (filter stack thickness causing trouble with their old expensive lens designs) and their expert marketing people finally managed to foo the whole Internet forums about the supposedly advantages.


Not so sure.
By comparing results obtained using the same lens (Zeiss 100mm macro planar) on a Leica M 240 (24MP) and on an EOS 5D4 (30MP), it becomes obvious that the Leica picture is sharper.
Leica had to use microlenses on their sensor, not because of "old" designs, but because most of their WAs are no retrofocus designs, an optical choice! The microlenses were needed to get sharper picture sides, compared to a conventional sensor ("guiding" light rays). 
Many Leica WAs "plunge" deep into the body.
They removed the AA filter explicitly to get a better definition.
I too hope for a sensor without AA filter, even though, at 100MP +, will that really matter?
And, Leica's "marketing experts" never gave a damn about the internet, and never tried to influence it. This is a pure conspiration theory!


----------



## wockawocka (May 27, 2022)

Hopefully Canon will offer pixel binning for once?


----------



## DotCom Editor (May 27, 2022)

amorse said:


> Oh yes please! I have many questions, but if it comes in closer to price/form factor of R5 than say a 1DX, I'd be very likely to pre-order. To be fair, I may still pre-order if it was more 1DX than R5.


I would never, ever, ever, in a million years pre-order again. I was stupid enough to be a very early adopter of the 1D3, the high-end camera notorious for its utter inability to focus. Having learned an expensive and disheartening lesson, I'll sit back and let others be the guinea pigs. Only after both the first major firmware update and the first permanent price cut are rolled out worldwide will I order a camera body. YMMV


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think that person does not understand the point of crop cameras. It won't be a need for crop cameras when high resolution full frame cameras will cost as much as crop ones.


Here is the post that you responded to:


Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.


The post is about using crop mode on a full frame camera (like the R5 the poster uses), vs. cropping the image in post processing. You don’t know if the person understands the point of crop cameras because he’s not talking about them at all. You are. Ergo, you missed the point.

Do you understand the difference between crop mode on a full frame camera and a camera with a crop sensor, and that it is possible to discuss one without considering the other? The concepts are not terribly complex, I suggest you give them some thought before replying.


----------



## amorse (May 27, 2022)

DotCom Editor said:


> I would never, ever, ever, in a million years pre-order again. I was stupid enough to be a very early adopter of the 1D3, the high-end camera notorious for its utter inability to focus. Having learned an expensive and disheartening lesson, I'll sit back and let others be the guinea pigs. Only after both the first major firmware update and the first permanent price cut are rolled out worldwide will I order a camera body. YMMV


This is my rule 99% of the time as well. My issue is I've been watching pricing for the R5 here in Canada and there's been fluctuation in price by 0-$400 in the body, even now, and it retails $5,399. So never more than 10% change at least since I've been watching. Two years of no permanent price cutting. Also, the 5DS and 5DSR were almost never a beneficiary of discounting until the cameras were nearly discontinued. Also, it seems to take forever for these bodies to get here and into consumers' hands. Also, I've been eager to replace my 5Div for ages now and it could be quite the wait otherwise. In this instance I may be ok with being the gunieapig.


----------



## chasingrealness (May 27, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Canon made an official development announcement of a 120MP DSLR in 2015, so they have been working on high resolution for a long time.
> 
> (Canon currently makes a 120MP industrial sensor, but it's APS-H size.)


Maybe canon is planning to introduce a medium format mini?


----------



## C4RBON (May 27, 2022)

jam05 said:


> News flash. Canon itself has now rebuked any and all rumors of the M-series being discontinued. And that the new cameras are NOT for young people. Maybe CR will stop peddling such garbage for another decade. Canon has confirmed what we already know, that the M-series accounts for 30% of all it's sales. It would be a foolish business blunder to discontinues sucha a profitable line of products with nada to replace it. The R10 certainly as we now know can NOT replace the M6 mk 2. Canon doesn't want any of it's ambassadors trumpeting and peddling any of that other nonsense.


Source?


----------



## Fischer (May 27, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.
> 
> 400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?


Is 8 MPIX not enough - or why did you upgrade?


----------



## Fischer (May 27, 2022)

Well, well. Was starting to give up any hope. Can wait a little longer for 120 MPIX since I've waited so long already. Will be first in line as long as its a R5 form factor.


----------



## GoldWing (May 28, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


So Canon is going heads up with the GFX 100s. Don't know. I thought the sweet spot was about 80 to 85MP to double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII

Love to think this is the R1 coming out but, it's just a tease to stop the bleeding from the Z9.

If canon gets even close to the quality of the GFX 50II or the GFX 100s, I'd be shocked. Canon is so "cheap" with resolution, it's just not in their character to give value like that.


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 28, 2022)

I would love to see how a 100 MPixel full frame sensor would stand up to the current Fuji GFX. I'm pretty happy with the current high resolution cameras from both Canon and Sony for the detail in nature shots but can always use a bit more.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> "With the R3 you can shoot a few thousand frames in a few seconds (which I own)"
> 2000 shots at 30 fps = 67 seconds - "a few thousand frames in a few minutes" is the correct maths. A couple of years ago some would have laughed at the thought of 2000 30 Mpx shots in a minute and they were just as wrong as you are laughing at 30x100 megapixels in a second. I don 't want 30x100 megapixels in a second, but some do and that's their privilege and you have no right to mock them.


Birdshooter is correct, people expecting 100MP at 30fps is totally unrealistic NOW, the consumer technology just does not support that! The logic associated with that expectation is quite messed up, since anyone wanting to photograph birds must do that with the current technology, which is perfectly doable. Bird photography has been carried out in the past with lower megapixel bodies and slower photo burst rates than the ones available now, so a 100MP 30fps body is definitely not a prerequisite for successful bird photography. Following the logic of those unrealistic expectations, people can wait ten or twenty years until that technology arrives to photograph birds, or they can go out and give it a go with the gear they have or that is presently available. They might even enjoy themselves!

The way I read it, the expectation 100MP at 30fps doesn't say "I want to photograph birds", it just says "I want to own very expensive, cutting edge technology that is capable of photographing birds". The latter is a 'gear head' perspective, which is fine for people who love gear for gear's sake, but it's important to distinguish that from the needs of people who want to enjoy time in nature photographing birds. New technology makes bird photography easier, and it is an incremental process. The way it's written sounds like it's a binary situation where a certain threshold of technology specifications exist (100MP at 30fps), where no bird photography is possible with anything below that. I can imagine all the National Geographic teams worldwide throwing their arms up in exasperation and telling their employer that they can't possibly take any bird photos until cameras can shoot 100MP at 30fps! 

To push the technology envelope, why stop at 100MP at 30fps in a standard camera body? Dream big! How about an AI motion detector tracking system, this technology already exists on advanced home security camera systems. Tripod mount the system, point it in the required direction, and let it rip. With 250Mp and a burst rate of 50 fps, you can just select the desired frame and crop in drastically to choose the image. Welcome to the brave new world of hand-off bird photography, where the bulk of the work is done in post (over many weeks), which so many desk jockeys love! 

To anyone that says that they need 100MP at 30fps to photograph birds, my question would be "What is stopping you now?". Realistically, it's probably budget if a very high standard of image quality is expected, unless the limiting factor is something not related to gear acquisition, such as training. What is certain is that if a camera boidy that can do100MP at 30fps is released, it won't be cheap, and would remain very expensive for a very long time!


----------



## sanj (May 28, 2022)

DotCom Editor said:


> I would never, ever, ever, in a million years pre-order again. I was stupid enough to be a very early adopter of the 1D3, the high-end camera notorious for its utter inability to focus. Having learned an expensive and disheartening lesson, I'll sit back and let others be the guinea pigs. Only after both the first major firmware update and the first permanent price cut are rolled out worldwide will I order a camera body. YMMV


Yes, the focus on that camera is not as good as r5. I returned my R3


----------



## Chig (May 28, 2022)

chrysoberyl said:


> What would the DLA be?


f/1.0 perhaps ?  But seriously silicone oven mitts might be needed to operate it and how long would it take to fill up a 4TB CF express card ?


----------



## noms78 (May 28, 2022)

A 2015 article on 120MP sensors:









Thoughts on Canon's 120MP DSLR: A Pixel Too Far?


Canon's latest press release has confirmed some of the rumors that have been floating around the Internet for a while now; that it has decided the




petapixel.com


----------



## koenkooi (May 28, 2022)

noms78 said:


> A 2015 article on 120MP sensors:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note that those sensors aren't using DPAF, so for 120MP with DPAF Canon would have to double the number of sensels, since every pixel would need 2, not 1.


----------



## JWest (May 28, 2022)

amorse said:


> That's really interesting - I wasn't aware that the Fuji MF bodies were so sensitive! I'd written the GFX system off because of the lack of lenses - no really wide and no long ish. Ideally, I'd want flexibility in focal length from maybe ~15mm-400mm covered in my kit, and I just don't see that realistically happening in GFX any time soon.


I use a gfx 100s with all sorts of canon lenses but even the native fuji 23mm is equivalent to 18mm and they are about to release a 20-35 (16-28 in 35mm FF terms). Additionally I have very successfully tested my 70-200/2.8 II with a 1.4x on it with no vignettes as well as my 300/2.8 II which covers the sensor on its own but also works well with the 2x III or amazingly, with the 2x II + 2x III combo for a resulting equivalent of 960mm on the 33x44 sensor ! 

Having IBIS plus the lens IS and it's actually amazingly ok to shoot by hand though sort of goofy due to length.


----------



## entoman (May 28, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Why has it taken CANON
> 8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ?
> 
> So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY
> ...


Possibly because Canon, until very recently, just didn't have either the sensor tech or the processing power to produce a hi-res camera that was capable of producing decent images at ISO 1600 or above. My old 5DS e.g. produced images with noise levels that were unacceptable *to me*, at anything much above ISO 800 (an issue now less relevant due to modern AI-based denoise software).


----------



## Del Paso (May 28, 2022)

Once again a cripplehammered Canon, only 120MP.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 28, 2022)

I'd love a 100MP full frame camera. I love detail in images. It would however cause alot of extra expense. Bigger memory cards, bigger external harddrives and a new laptop. I don't get laptops these days. When cameras were 10MP you could get a 2TB external disk drive. Now we are heading for 100MP images and SSD Drives tend to be 1TB or less. Thank god they created SSD Drives or we'd never be able to process large images. I wonder are CFExpress cards very profitable. They are very expensive and run very hot. None have died yet but I'd wonder are they cooking away until they fail.


----------



## BadHorse (May 28, 2022)

Good god no! The jump from 20MP to 45MB already made DPP excruciatingly slow -- I'm sure 100MP will be intolerable.


----------



## Chig (May 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> f/4.7. A 20 Mpx 1" sensor camera has the pixel density of a 146 Mpx FF and a DLA of f/3.92.


Got to wonder what the use case is.
If the DLA is only f/4.7 then at most lens' sweet spot of f/5.6-8 then diffraction will start to be noticeable and will counter act the fine resolution so what's the point ?
Am I missing something?
Maybe astronomy , but a dedicated astronomy sensor would be cheaper and better anyway.
If there is a strong use case it must be pretty niche


----------



## John Wilde (May 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> And that the new cameras are NOT for young people.


R10 with kit lens: $1,099
M50 II with kit lens: $700

Which camera better fits the budget of a young person?


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> R10 with kit lens: $1,099
> M50 II with kit lens: $700
> 
> Which camera better fits the budget of a young person?


It depends on how much money their parents have.


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2022)

Those concerned about file size should know you can always shoot c-raw with little to no loss of quality.


----------



## amorse (May 28, 2022)

Chig said:


> Got to wonder what the use case is.
> If the DLA is only f/4.7 then at most lens' sweet spot of f/5.6-8 then diffraction will start to be noticeable and will counter act the fine resolution so what's the point ?
> Am I missing something?
> Maybe astronomy , but a dedicated astronomy sensor would be cheaper and better anyway.
> If there is a strong use case it must be pretty niche


I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.


----------



## Chig (May 29, 2022)

amorse said:


> I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.


Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?
You'll need a monster computer and I doubt it'll be possible in camera


----------



## amorse (May 29, 2022)

Chig said:


> Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?
> You'll need a monster computer and I doubt it'll be possible in camera


Ha, oh yes. It's going to be a task! I just upgraded to an M1 max MBP and it's been blazing fast so far. I'm hopeful it's enough! With that said, my working PSBs are already often over 2GB anyway and it's not uncommon for me to get well over 100mpx by stitching. And I don't really trust photoshop's stacking tools so I usually just end up doing it manually. I've learned patience in these sort of situations! It's not too bad though - I probably only produce maybe 50 images a year, so I can tolerate spending a lot of time per image. 

What can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment!


----------



## stevelee (May 29, 2022)

gmon750 said:


> Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.
> 
> I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.
> 
> ...


My new Mac has a 2TB SSD, and probably about 15TB free space on external drives to archive RAW files on. I’ve thought through this a bit. Storage is not the reason I’m not looking to buy the Fuji GFX 100S. I can’t think of an excuse to buy one in terms of what I would do with it that is different enough from what I already can do and don’t really shoot that much.


----------



## 2Cents (May 29, 2022)

All other features aside. A dual Digic X processor setup would probably get this into our hands sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dragon (May 29, 2022)

jvillain said:


> I am sure there are some people that would take a $10,000 camera out in the wild to shoot birds. But with a massive recession coming on I am not sure there will be that many.


During a recession, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. During the Great Depression, Packards, Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Duesenbergs sold quite well.


----------



## Dragon (May 29, 2022)

noms78 said:


> Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
> 
> For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?


Focus stacking is now built in, so which is better for high-res landscape, a 120MP focus stack at f/5 or a stitched pano of 20MP shots at f/11 or f/16? Probably scene dependent, but either approach will have some artifacts. Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2022)

amorse said:


> I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.


Only if you’re going to be outputting the image at full native size or larger. Even then it’ll be pretty much imperceptible. As for tilt allowing desired depth of field at larger apertures, it’s not as useful as some imagine. The facts are, if you want the benefits of an ultra high mp sensor you need a larger format.


----------



## Del Paso (May 29, 2022)

What I have understood till now is that I'll have to test it before buying.
Since most of my macros and landscapes are shot between F8 and F16, will I really see a difference (DLA!) compared to the R5?
Anyway, one certainty: this will be a fantastic tool for astronomy and other specific uses.


----------



## Berowne (May 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> What I have understood till now is that I'll have to test it before buying.
> Since most of my macros and landscapes are shot between F8 and F16, will I really see a difference (DLA!) compared to the R5?
> Anyway, one certainty: this will be a fantastic tool for astronomy and other specific uses.


There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.  
 JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE


----------



## stevelee (May 29, 2022)

Berowne said:


> There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
> JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE


The Webb telescope sees in infrared and maybe lower. It can look into the distant past by detecting galaxies moving away so fast that the light from our perspective is red shifted enough that even Hubble can’t see them. It may show us more about the earliest times of the universe, but is not likely to produce images as aesthetically pleasing as what someone with a telescope can shoot out in the yard.


----------



## stevelee (May 29, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.


Is that now true? Traditionally the rule of thumb was that lenses are at their best two stops down from wide open. When I was shooting the solar eclipse a few years back I was using the not-so-hot 75–300mm lens on my T3i. So I found tests of the lens that indicated it was best (or least bad) at f/11, so I used that for most of my shots. So I’m a bit skeptical of any statement as broad as yours seems to be.


----------



## john1970 (May 29, 2022)

amorse said:


> I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.


I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?


----------



## Del Paso (May 29, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?


Many reasons in my case, at least.
First, I don't use my camera(s) exclusively for landscape, but also for macros, cities, people, animals etc...
Second, I'd miss many lenses that I find useful, like UWA, TS and long tele-zooms.
Third, weight, bulk, weather resistance and cost.


----------



## amorse (May 29, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?


I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well. 

My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.


----------



## john1970 (May 29, 2022)

amorse said:


> I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.
> 
> My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.


Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.


----------



## cgc (May 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not so sure.
> By comparing results obtained using the same lens (Zeiss 100mm macro planar) on a Leica M 240 (24MP) and on an EOS 5D4 (30MP), it becomes obvious that the Leica picture is sharper.
> Leica had to use microlenses on their sensor, not because of "old" designs, but because most of their WAs are no retrofocus designs, an optical choice! The microlenses were needed to get sharper picture sides, compared to a conventional sensor ("guiding" light rays).
> Many Leica WAs "plunge" deep into the body.
> ...



Note that sharpness may be fake. Aliasing (and false sharpness/detail) always exists. Google for "circular sunburst aliasing"... every camera will generate aliasing taking a shot of such a picture (at a big enough aperture): the false/invented resolution is still there in any other subject, but is not so easy to spot, because you didn't know in advance how the picture was in real life.

Leica did removed the AA filter because it was too thick for their classic lenses (see this link). At the very least they were not sincere with their customers, because at low pixel count that causes a sensible tradeof, including the risk of totally false colors (completely unaceptable e.g. for a wedding dress).

There is a good reason because digital audio is sampled at twice the human ear resolution (44 KHz vs 22 KHz) and then passed through a low pass filter, which still keeps it "effectively" above the required 22 KHz but with most of the aliasing getting rid. The same applies to digital image processing. We don't want a XX megapixel sensor... we actually need 2x the amount of pixels and a low pass filter (plus when handling images, a proper sharpening technique, like deconvolution-based ones, will recover most of the perceptually lost sharpness). No AA filter is perfect (none will not remove all the aliasing nor will be "free" in terms of resolution) but things improve a lot with them. They are *required* for *engineering* reasons.

In photography, each time resolution doubles, the aperture threshold for aliasing decreases a full stop. So e.g. at 50MP, in a full frame camera lacking the AA filter, F11 is "safe" (only traces) and F16 is nearly zero-aliasing territory. With 100MP we are safe at F8. And we need 800MP to be safe at F2.8. In fact, there is no need to go further, because there are no lenses sharper at F2.0 or bellow (even at the center of the image, a great F1.2 or F1.4 lens improves slightly stopped down to F2 or F2.8) so at wide enough apertures, aberrations replace diffraction as a aliasing-free grantor (provided the amount of pixels is enough, e.g. the mentioned 800MP for full frame).


----------



## Del Paso (May 29, 2022)

And why doesn't Leica fit their SL2 sensor with an AA filter, lenses cannot be the reason (all WAs are retrofocus type) ?
My Wetzlar contact (R/D) confirmed they suppressed the AA filter to obtain better sharpness, and I'm convinced he knows what he is talking about. Even the M could have been fitted with a thin AA filter, at the cost of sharpness reduction.
It was a choice, not a necessity, no matter what the internet believes to know. The Leica M sensor microlenses were a necessity which doesn't exist for the SL, SL2 and SL2s. The drawback is a higher risk of moire.


----------



## stevelee (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Many reasons in my case, at least.
> First, I don't use my camera(s) exclusively for landscape, but also for macros, cities, people, animals etc...
> Second, I'd miss many lenses that I find useful, like UWA, TS and long tele-zooms.
> Third, weight, bulk, weather resistance and cost.


Were I to get the 100S, I wouldn’t get rid of my Canon gear, nor would I buy a panoply of new lenses. I would keep what I have, and get just lenses I would use for landscapes and the like. I’d probably start with the 23mm (~18mm) f/4 to start with, maybe soon adding the 32–64mm unless they come out with something more interesting to me in the meantime. Then I would choose the gear that best fit what I wanted to do. For traveling, I’d still use the G5X II, and the reality is that it is the camera I use most for landscapes as it is. It is the camera I have with me when I go to scenic places. If I found myself using my DSLR for more landscapes, then I’d revisit the question of buying the 100S. Of course late some night if I discovered that both the 100S and the 23mm were in stock, they could make a great impulse purchase. But my point is that I don’t see the 100S causing my abandoning anything I can do now, just supplementing it.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 30, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Beyond limited lens selection for the GFX is lack of proper weather sealing. Was on a photo tour in Alaska last winter and one of the photographers with the GFX barely made it our of the gate. The body died in temps just below zero F. The R5 performed admirably down to -32. At least for me as a landscape photographer, I want a camera that is going to tolerate a pretty broad set of environmental conditions. Those conditions are where the magic happen!


I like how Canon under promises and over delivers (except for overheating issues initially!)


Fuji GFX has a wider range at 



Both are clearly out of advertised specifications at -32C!


----------



## InchMetric (May 30, 2022)

Probably the best “use case”
For 100+MP is “more different from a phone camera than before”.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Nature photographers love rugged high resolution cameras to get extra reach while out in the wild.


Hi Alan. I am a nature photographer. Rugged is good - although most cameras now are rugged enough for me. R5 mpx is enough for my reach requirements. I prefer burst, fps way more than high mpx when it comes to capturing the moment in wildlife photography.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2022)

sanj said:


> Hi Alan. I am a nature photographer. Rugged is good - although most cameras now are rugged enough for me. R5 mpx is enough for my reach requirements. I prefer burst, fps way more than high mpx when it comes to capturing the moment in wildlife photography.


I know you are one Sanj. You returned your R3. 45 Mpx is good enough for me too, and better than fewer Mpx.


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Were I to get the 100S, I wouldn’t get rid of my Canon gear, nor would I buy a panoply of new lenses. I would keep what I have, and get just lenses I would use for landscapes and the like. I’d probably start with the 23mm (~18mm) f/4 to start with, maybe soon adding the 32–64mm unless they come out with something more interesting to me in the meantime. Then I would choose the gear that best fit what I wanted to do. For traveling, I’d still use the G5X II, and the reality is that it is the camera I use most for landscapes as it is. It is the camera I have with me when I go to scenic places. If I found myself using my DSLR for more landscapes, then I’d revisit the question of buying the 100S. Of course late some night if I discovered that both the 100S and the 23mm were in stock, they could make a great impulse purchase. But my point is that I don’t see the 100S causing my abandoning anything I can do now, just supplementing it.


I understand your point, having shared the same ideas of a "mixed" camera bag.
Yet, hiking in the mountains means having to make a decision: what shall I leave home?
Is it the EOS? Certainly no, since I need the 100-400, the 24 TSE ,the 14mm and a lightweight macro plus ringflash.
Is it the Leica? While the EOS & 100-400 are mounted on a backpack strap via Peak-Design clip, the Leica M is hanging from my neck. The Fuji is far to heavy for that. Also, I'd miss my luminous and lightweight Leica M lenses.
Finally, it all comes down to a simple question: 15 or 18 kg.
Even though, the Fuji -despite what I've read about its poor resistance to elements- is still tempting, I decided against it and pro high MP Canon.


----------



## peters (May 30, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?


I like higher resolution,s but MF is not realy interesting for me. Main reason is the MUCH better speed, AF and video feauters in current Fullframe models.
The Fuji GFX 100S certainly produces outstanding images. But the AF is so slow, the overall operating speed is super annoying... Its great if you do landscape, travel, studio work. But for everything else (wedding, people, sports, video work...) I feel the R5 or a Sony a7R IV is the much better suited tool. They offer also a quite high mega pixel count AND much better overall performance.

Also the lense selection for MF (especialy Fuji) is super limited. I have a MUCH more versatile collection with my canon lenses, then there are even Fuji lenses for MF on the market...

The other brands (Hasselblad, Leica, Phase One) are too expensive for me. It feels like the price is not right anymore in that area :-D Also they are very very slow and I read often that they are not that reliable. Its certainly a kind of photography thats beautiful, but overall not my market.

A high mega pixel canon FF camera would be certainly interesting for me. If they can put the R5 video features into a similar body (without overheat) it would be a perfect camera for me


----------



## peters (May 30, 2022)

amorse said:


> I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.
> 
> My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.


I agree on the lense selection. Plus faster AF, general operation speed and videofeatures on Fullframe cameras like the R5. 
Also, you can find excellent wide and fast lenses for Canon if you go 3rd party. Sigma 14mm F1,8 Art for example  
Also, the Canon 11-24mm is extremely sharp and offers a unique look which I found quite stunning in a lot of situations. Its something I cant produce in MF. So Fullframe is the way to go for me.


----------



## stevelee (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I understand your point, having shared the same ideas of a "mixed" camera bag.
> Yet, hiking in the mountains mean having to make a decision: what shall I leave home?
> Is it the EOS? Certainly no, since I need the 100-400, the 24 TSE ,the 14mm and a lightweight macro plus ringflash.
> Is it the Leica? While the EOS & 100-400 are mounted on a backpack strap via Peak-Design clip, the Leica M is hanging from my neck. The Fuji is far to heavy for that. Also, I'd miss my luminous and lightweight Leica M lenses.
> ...


The reviews I have seen give good marks to the 100S for weather sealing. It is less of an issue for me, because when the weather is too bad for the camera, it is certainly too bad for me to want to go out taking photos. I rarely do any hiking other than in the 7.8 acres of woods behind my house, and then it is to shoot fall color. I have good views from my deck, and see a good bit of wildlife from there. The birds don't seem bothered by my presence (unless they are on the deck themselves, and fly away when I go out), but the deer duck behind trees if you point something at them. If I'm going out taking pictures, I mostly have a clear idea of what I am wanting to shoot and just take my best lens for that. I might hedge my bet by taking something else along, and rarely wind up using it. So you and I have very different habits and interests, but are both attracted to the same camera, but (so far) choosing not to buy it for mostly different reasons.

I have much less gear than you, and all of what I still use come from Canon. My Rebels and EF-S lenses get no use any more. I find the 16–35mm f/4, the 24–105mm, and the 100–400mm lenses cover about anything I want to shoot. The three primes are the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm macro, and they fill in for their special purposes. If I shot a lot of landscapes in the 16 to 18mm range, I would have already ordered the 100S, but I don't. So that is adequately instructive. Likewise if I felt the need for a lot of megapixels, I'd go for the 100S rather than spending a like amount of money for FF. My color printer will handle paper up to 13" wide, so the pictures on my wall are on 13" x 19" paper or are on roll paper of that width. I realize that with 102MP I could crop out some nice wide murals to print,, but that is about the only real use case that comes to mind. But at real estate prices right now, I'm not about to buy a bigger house to have enough wall space to hang them. And the 13" x 19" prints from my G5X II travel pictures look great. I doubt five times the pixels would have improved them enough to justify lugging around anything heavier.


----------



## stevelee (May 30, 2022)

peters said:


> I like higher resolution,s but MF is not realy interesting for me. Main reason is the MUCH better speed, AF and video feauters in current Fullframe models.
> The Fuji GFX 100S certainly produces outstanding images. But the AF is so slow, the overall operating speed is super annoying... Its great if you do landscape, travel, studio work. But for everything else (wedding, people, sports, video work...) I feel the R5 or a Sony a7R IV is the much better suited tool. They offer also a quite high mega pixel count AND much better overall performance.


I wouldn't be using the 100S in ways where speed and autofocus would be of importance. I'd shoot slow and deliberate landscapes. So for "everything else" I'd still have my Canon gear.


----------



## Berowne (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I understand your point, having shared the same ideas of a "mixed" camera bag.
> Yet, hiking in the mountains mean having to make a decision: what shall I leave home?
> Is it the EOS? Certainly no, since I need the 100-400, the 24 TSE ,the 14mm and a lightweight macro plus ringflash.
> Is it the Leica? While the EOS & 100-400 are mounted on a backpack strap via Peak-Design clip, the Leica M is hanging from my neck. The Fuji is far to heavy for that. Also, I'd miss my luminous and lightweight Leica M lenses.
> ...


... meanwhile the Leica M (and my old Leicaflex) is hanging from the neck of my son.


----------



## max (May 30, 2022)

120MP is not eough... I need more!


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

Berowne said:


> ... meanwhile the Leica M (and my old Leicaflex) is hanging from the neck of my son.


Still have my Leicaflex SL (best film camera ever, with Nikon's F2) and my SL2.
But my son...won't be caught with a camera around his neck.
Someday I'll have to disinherit him!


----------



## Berowne (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Still have my Leicaflex SL (best film camera ever, with Nikon's F2) and my SL2.
> But my son...won't be caught with a camera around his neck.
> Someday I'll have to disinherit him!


Here is it!


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Here is it!
> View attachment 204005


Much better condition than mine!
The Elmarit is a great lens on an EOS!
I still have the Summicron 90, APO 3,4/180, 2,8/28 (not good at all on digital), the APO macro 100, macro Elmarit 60, Telyt 560
and... a dozen cute little M lenses which I often use on my EOS R (and soon on the R5). And a battered (to death!) R4 S2
_ I hated the microprism focusing screens so much that I replaced them with full matte screens from Leica's Customer Care, quite easy to do.
Sadly, they no longer sell spares..._


----------



## Berowne (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> The
> 
> Much better condition than mine!
> The Elmarit is a great lens on an EOS!
> ...


This is a lot of pretty good glas, Del Paso. The 90mm Elmarit was my favourite lens. I made thousands of Kodak-Slides with the Leicaflex SL2 & 2.8/90 - wonderful colors! But my old eyes will not longer work properly with Manual-Focus and the Rangerfinder of the M did not make it better. So my analog times are over, memories only.


----------



## Dragon (May 30, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Is that now true? Traditionally the rule of thumb was that lenses are at their best two stops down from wide open. When I was shooting the solar eclipse a few years back I was using the not-so-hot 75–300mm lens on my T3i. So I found tests of the lens that indicated it was best (or least bad) at f/11, so I used that for most of my shots. So I’m a bit skeptical of any statement as broad as yours seems to be.


Sorry, I should have qualified the statement to say most lenses you would consider appropriate to a 120MP camera are best between f/4 and f/5.6. That applies to most f/1.4 to f/2.8 lenses these days. Clearly an f/5.6-f/8 zoom is not going to fall in that category, but it seems like a lot of the slower lenses are now about as good as they are going to get when wide open and that was not at all true in the past.


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

Berowne said:


> This is a lot of pretty good glas, Del Paso. The 90mm Elmarit was my favourite lens. I made thousands of Kodak-Slides with the Leicaflex SL2 & 2.8/90 - wonderful colors! But my old eyes will not longer work properly with Manual-Focus and the Rangerfinder of the M did not make it better. So my analog times are over, memories only.


Understand!
Autofocus saves us from a blurry darkness. Anyway, newer DSLRs cannot be focused as reliably as the Leicaflex, Minoltas and Nikons could.
And even digital Ms are far more demanding, especially with luminous lenses.
Yet, it's fun to play every now and then with these beautiful SLs and F2s, Canon's first F1 included of course.


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Understand!
> Autofocus saves us from a blurry darkness. Anyway, newer DSLRs cannot be focused as reliably as the Leicaflex, Minoltas and Nikons could.
> And even digital Ms are far more demanding, especially with luminous lenses.
> Yet, it's fun to play every now and then with these beautiful SLs and F2s, Canon's first F1 included of course.


Sad news for me the day Kodachrome died.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 30, 2022)

Can't wait for cat butt images in 100 MP quality


----------



## cgc (May 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And why doesn't Leica fit their SL2 sensor with an AA filter, lenses cannot be the reason (all WAs are retrofocus type) ?
> My Wetzlar contact (R/D) confirmed they suppressed the AA filter to obtain better sharpness, and I'm convinced he knows what he is talking about. Even the M could have been fitted with a thin AA filter, at the cost of sharpness reduction.
> It was a choice, not a necessity, no matter what the internet believes to know. The Leica M sensor microlenses were a necessity which doesn't exist for the SL, SL2 and SL2s. The drawback is a higher risk of moire.



Microlenses over the sensor are used by every single manufacturer and have no relation with aliasing or AA filters, but just to avoid losing the light "between pixels" and to improve the capture in the corners. But I was not talking about microlenses.

I was talking about Leica removing the AA filter which started in their M bodies. In the link I posted to POTN you can see how a mere 2mm glass cover over the sensor changes the light path enough to turn a great lens as garbage at wide openings. A big aperture lens designed for certain exit pupil in a film camera can not successfully deal with a sensor, necessarily placed at the same distance, but holding a new additional glass element just over it (the filter stack, including the AA, which tends to have several millimetres).

Digital cameras with a filter stack require newly designed lenses. And such new lenses neither will properly work in a camera lacking the same filter stack they were designed for. So once a manufacturer chooses to remove the AA filter to create a thin filter stack... yes, it achieves great performance with its old lenses... but will be locked forever in that design choice, and the fate of aliasing. And yes, ultimately they trade sharpness for image quality.

I don't know why the new L mount Leica cameras lack the AA filter (M adapted lenses compatibility perhaps?) but this a a Leica specific choice. The Sigma 61MP L mount camera does have an AA filter, and I suspect that Sigma L lenses will be properly finetuned for it. Quoting Sigma:

_"The SIGMA fp L features a Bayer sensor [...] Furthermore, for its image quality that are in principle free of color artifacts, the Foveon sensor legacy was also behind the decision that the fp L should have a low-pass filter to reduce moiré to minimum levels. The use of a low-pass filter was a choice that made sense for a camera with an ample megapixels such as the SIGMA fp L."_

I couldn't agree more with Sigma!

Most people is never aware of the filter stack. Even Lens Rentals experts, despite their huge investment in expensive testing equipment, discovered with surprise by themselves this fact lot of years later than the people talking at POTN.

In addition Canon has designed an excelent AA filter design for their high end bodies, as some have studied. An additional reason to eagerly desire such tech in a 100MP camera (which will otherwise aliase badly from F5.6 and above). Aliasing doesn't only show on fabrics. Every single city shot including balcony and similar repeating patters may show it to a greater or less extent. It is an aberration which must be manually locally handled during post and not at zero cost. Perhaps I'm a perfectionist, but I'm just tired of my A7R3 regarding this matter.


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

1: There is of course no relation between microlenses and AA filters, but Leica needed a more specific design (microlens orientation, if I'm not mistaken), some of their WAs intruding too deeply into the body. It was about "guiding" the light rays.
2: M lens adaptability to the SL2 was rather a software issue to suppress the heavy magenta hue on sides. The SL can , like the M, read the 6 bit coding, other brands can't.
3: Lack of AA filter can indeed help when using extreme Leica M WAs on an SL. Agreed!
4: Only 35mm + M lenses can be used on L mount Sigmas an Panasonics, if you want to avoid magenta cast. So, no retrofocus lenses. I personally adapt from 35 to 135mm M lenses to my EOS R.
5: Moire etc.. I fully agree and understand your point, fortunately there's Lightroom as a fix. But avoiding aliasing is indeed better.


----------



## MrToes (May 31, 2022)

Well, finally my old wallet is going to give Canon some $$$$


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Nature photographers love rugged high resolution cameras to get extra reach while out in the wild.


I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.

That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.


----------



## nemtom (May 31, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Even at 120mp, 120 would mean a crop mode of 45 megapixels.. That would be one serious camera for wildlife and birding depending on the frame rates available.
> 
> I said it in the R7 post, but I think Canon is in a position to give professionals more options for reach/cropping in the form of the R5s for wildlife photographers who need pro features, a fully pro build, and lots of reach.
> 
> ...


The only problem is that with that small pixels you would be already diffraction limited using the 600/4 wide open. Maybe with the 400/2.8 it would be alright, but that is a tiny bit short for birding (at least in Europe, where birds are not that tame).


----------



## Del Paso (May 31, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.
> 
> That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.


And what should I say?
Most of my macros are shot at f = 8 to f= 16...
Isn't it a bit strange that portrait and astro photographers will be the ones to benefit a maximum from the 100 MP, and not the ones -landscapers and macro photographers- who would need them?


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.
> 
> That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.


I don’t disagree and have written in a couple of places that the R10 resolution is good enough for me with the narrow telephotos I use. But, if I had an f/2.8 or f/4 lens I would benefit from the R7 better. At longer distances, I’m not worried much about depth of field and tend to shoot wide open.


----------



## 2 cents (May 31, 2022)

Hmm, so I guess they're going to give us a high res camera to crop like there's no tomorrow... instead of decent "affordable" super telephotos like Nikon did with the 500mm. I bet it won't be cheap, knowing Canon of late....


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Hmm, so I guess they're going to give us a high res camera to crop like there's no tomorrow... instead of decent "affordable" super telephotos like Nikon did with the 500mm. I bet it won't be cheap, knowing Canon of late....


The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 used to be my favourite lens. But, the RF 100-500mm is as near as dammit as sharp, can focus very close up, has all the advantages of a zoom and is cheaper.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 31, 2022)

smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)


----------



## amorse (May 31, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)


It must be exhausting for them to jump to conclusions so quickly


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 31, 2022)

I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping. 
The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.


----------



## Czardoom (May 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 used to be my favourite lens. But, the RF 100-500mm is as near as dammit as sharp, can focus very close up, has all the advantages of a zoom and is cheaper.


I find it a bit funny how so many folks compare the telephoto lenses of other brands to Canon's, and consider Canon oh so lacking - and yet, the best overall telephoto lens out there is the RF 100-500, in my opinion.


----------



## Czardoom (May 31, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
> The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.


I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.


----------



## Del Paso (May 31, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.


Good idea!
But don't forget to test at F 11 and F 16 too!


----------



## amorse (May 31, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.


I'd be shocked if someone didn't do that to be honest. But as with anything, it likely won't be a black and white result; it'll be very dependent on specifics - i.e. shutter speed, lens length, aperture, how shaky the hands of the photographer are, sensor/lens stabilization, etc. If I was betting, I'd say even in those scenarios you should be able to create a difference, but the point at which that difference is meaningful really depends on the photographer's expectations and the use case.


----------



## Sporgon (May 31, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
> The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.


As someone who has used 5DS cameras for the past five years this is broadly my experience too. Cropping tight and still being able to produce a large output is definitely an advantage, beyond that………not so much. I’ve struggled to prove that 50mp captures more perceivable detail than say 30mp. At very large output sizes, that is larger than native, there is a slight improvement in quality against a lesser mp frame but straight away you run into the reality of viewing distance; much larger pictures are viewed from further away negating the fractionally improved clarity / resolution. Camera manufacturers will no doubt keep producing higher and higher mp bodies until people have had enough and stop buying them, but personally I think as a practical camera 100mp on FF is too much.


----------



## entoman (May 31, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And what should I say?
> Most of my macros are shot at f = 8 to f= 16...
> Isn't it a bit strange that portrait and astro photographers will be the ones to benefit a maximum from the 100 MP, and not the ones -landscapers and macro photographers- who would need them?


I'll start by qualifying what I mean by "macro" - I'm using it in the broad sense, i.e. reproduction ratios between 1:4 and 1:1.

Optimum aperture for resolution with a F2.8 macro will typically be at around F5.6. So, if you're shooting at F8-16 you're not getting the best resolution from the lens. But of course, with a lot of macro subjects (unless focus-stacking) you need to stop down to get enough depth of field.

The only really relevant question is whether or not the resolution you get at F8-16 is good enough to satisfy you.

FWIW, I've been shooting macro for more years than I can remember. In the early days maximum depth of field was my goal, so I shot everything at F16, but I did notice a significant loss of overall sharpness compared to F8-11. Nowadays I tend to shoot mostly at F5.6 to ensure an uncluttered background and maximum resolution.


----------



## scyrene (May 31, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
> The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.


I'm a little confused, you say 100MP makes diffraction a "huge issue", but you're getting an R7 which is equivalent to more than 80MP.


----------



## Del Paso (May 31, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'll start by qualifying what I mean by "macro" - I'm using it in the broad sense, i.e. reproduction ratios between 1:4 and 1:1.
> 
> Optimum aperture for resolution with a F2.8 macro will typically be at around F5.6. So, if you're shooting at F8-16 you're not getting the best resolution from the lens. But of course, with a lot of macro subjects (unless focus-stacking) you need to stop down to get enough depth of field.
> 
> ...


Focus stacking is usually impossible outdoors, wind, or simply handheld photography. So, if I want to get maximum d.o.f, and the subject in focus, I must close the diaphragm.
At 1:2 to 1:1, this can mean F 11 to 16, ISO 100 (less grain) and the best lens possible (Apo Macro Elmarit, sometimes EF 100L). By the way, I'm speaking of flowers here.
If flowers are "flat", F 5,6 or F 8 are often sufficient. Not the case with cacti, irises or orchids, unfortunately.
"Good enough" is often better than only a sharp slice of the subject.
"Artistic" macro pictures offer far more liberty, like playing with unsharpness, focusing on small details etc...
You understand what I'm speaking of: compromising!
With the 5 D4 or Leica M 240 (both between 24 and 30 MP), quality obtained is very satisfactory. But will high MPs make sense for me, I'll have to check by renting.
Yet, for focus stacking closeups, 100 MP will be perfect!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 1, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> As someone who has used 5DS cameras for the past five years this is broadly my experience too. Cropping tight and still being able to produce a large output is definitely an advantage, beyond that………not so much. I’ve struggled to prove that 50mp captures more perceivable detail than say 30mp. At very large output sizes, that is larger than native, there is a slight improvement in quality against a lesser mp frame but straight away you run into the reality of viewing distance; much larger pictures are viewed from further away negating the fractionally improved clarity / resolution. Camera manufacturers will no doubt keep producing higher and higher mp bodies until people have had enough and stop buying them, but personally I think as a practical camera 100mp on FF is too much.


I suppose it depends on how one shoots...and what conditions one shoots in. In my experience I find that given the same lens, my 5DSR outresolves my lower res cameras by quite a margin. But you are right about viewing distance...the difference between 20-30MP and 50MP is seen up close and personal, for the most part.

As far as going up to 100+ MP - more power to those that want it, but as far as I'm concerned 50MP files are already a handful to capture optimally and to deal with storage-wise.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I don’t disagree and have written in a couple of places that the R10 resolution is good enough for me with the narrow telephotos I use. But, if I had an f/2.8 or f/4 lens I would benefit from the R7 better. At longer distances, I’m not worried much about depth of field and tend to shoot wide open.


It is also the lens combo - I frequently use Canon's 1.4 TC III, which is already good but improves on my EF 500mm when I stop it down. So, we both agree that 24 MP would have been the sweet spot for a 7D2 successor. If the R10 would be more rugged and would have two card slots, I'd prefer this camera over the R7. But I really needed and appreciated the ruggedness of my original 7D (still working btw) and 7D2. Our Nikons need much more protection if it starts to get a bit rough, or its batteries lose so much power when it is getting really cold, that the AF drive slows down. I hope the R7 will have the same mechanical quality, despite it is so tiny.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> It is also the lens combo - I frequently use Canon's 1.4 TC III, which is already good but improves on my EF 500mm when I stop it down. So, we both agree that 24 MP would have been the sweet spot for a 7D2 successor. If the R10 would be more rugged and would have two card slots, I'd prefer this camera over the R7. But I really needed and appreciated the ruggedness of my original 7D (still working btw) and 7D2. Our Nikons need much more protection if it starts to get a bit rough, or its batteries lose so much power when it is getting really cold, that the AF drive slows down. I hope the R7 will have the same mechanical quality, despite it is so tiny.


For us, 24 Mpx could be a sweet spot. But, others who use wide lenses, especially f/2.8 or wider, could well find 32 Mpx better.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2022)

105 mpix would have been better. /S


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.
> 
> 400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?


Well, I own and have used a Fuji GFX100, a 101 MP digital medium format camera for a couple years now....and I have to say, having such a breadth of ability to crop as needed IS a nice benefit!!

Zooming in is fun.

But my question is....if Canon is going to try to squeeze 100mp into a regular full frame sensor, won't that cause some problems?

Is it not better to have a larger sensor when the megapixel count goes past a certain threshold so that the pixels aren't having to be shrunk so small and packed in together so densely?

Is there a "wall" you hit at some point with MP count vs sensor area size?

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

jam05 said:


> So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year. Let hope Canon doesn't ruin it with a cheap crappy LCD on the rear of it.


Considering there are already other digital "medium format" cameras on the market with larger sensors...I don't think canon could get away with marketing a camera as MF if they still are using a FF sensor, no matter how many pixels they try to squeeze in there.

V


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You could, but you lose a lot of light because of the Bayer Filter. Of yourse the Bayer Filter gives you the option to compose your B/W photos out of three channels. So you can decide how dark the sky or the grass get. You lose that option with a monochrome sensor, but in return you get much sharper images and much lower noise. You do not need any demosaicing algorithms to guess the brightness of each pixel based on its neigbours. A normal 24 megapixel camera has 6 million red pixels, 6 million blue pixels and 12 million green pixels. Having 24 million "white" pixels increases the image quality by a lot. That's why Leica and Phase One offer monochrome sensors.


And with the monochrome camera (I have the M10M)...you can just go the old fashion route and use filters on your camera for darkening/lightening things you want in your composition.

I tend to keep at least a yellow filter on my M10M all the time at a minimum...I go orange if I want a more bold statement, especially with my skies, etc...

You just make your decisions in the field, that's the main difference.

Having a monochrome camera really changed how I view the world, more and more I'm seeing in luminance, not just color and it changes how you think about images, it really does.

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

amorse said:


> That's really interesting - I wasn't aware that the Fuji MF bodies were so sensitive! I'd written the GFX system off because of the lack of lenses - no really wide and no long ish. Ideally, I'd want flexibility in focal length from maybe ~15mm-400mm covered in my kit, and I just don't see that realistically happening in GFX any time soon.


Don't forget, one of the miracles of mirrorless cameras...is ADAPTING other lenses to it.

I've had good results adapting real medium format lenses, my Hasselblad V system lenses to my GFX100. There's a lot of that older high quality glass out there from real medium format film cameras that you can use, for faster lenses, wider and longer....ok, not as much long but wider and faster. They're reasonable cheap and give great images.

Hell, I'm about to set up to experiment using my GFX100 as a digital back to hook to a 4x5 camera and utilize LF lenses that I can also use movements with....

So, do look around and be open about adapting lenses to your mirrorless cameras, no matter what brand or model you get.

It can really open up new worlds of imagery for you.

HTH,
C


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> So Canon is going heads up with the GFX 100s. Don't know. I thought the sweet spot was about 80 to 85MP to double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII
> 
> Love to think this is the R1 coming out but, it's just a tease to stop the bleeding from the Z9.
> 
> If canon gets even close to the quality of the GFX 50II or the GFX 100s, I'd be shocked. Canon is so "cheap" with resolution, it's just not in their character to give value like that.


Well, if canon is sticking with only FF sized sensors (which I assume they are at this time), this won't exactly be head to head....

Just my $0.02,

C


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2022)

cayenne said:


> But my question is....if Canon is going to try to squeeze 100mp into a regular full frame sensor, won't that cause some problems?
> 
> Is it not better to have a larger sensor when the megapixel count goes past a certain threshold so that the pixels aren't having to be shrunk so small and packed in together so densely?
> 
> Is there a "wall" you hit at some point with MP count vs sensor area size?


Lots of cell phones use Samsung's 108 MP camera module with a 1/1.33" sensor (crop factor of 3.6 relative to FF).


----------



## cayenne (Jun 1, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Were I to get the 100S, I wouldn’t get rid of my Canon gear, nor would I buy a panoply of new lenses. I would keep what I have, and get just lenses I would use for landscapes and the like. I’d probably start with the 23mm (~18mm) f/4 to start with, maybe soon adding the 32–64mm unless they come out with something more interesting to me in the meantime. Then I would choose the gear that best fit what I wanted to do. For traveling, I’d still use the G5X II, and the reality is that it is the camera I use most for landscapes as it is. It is the camera I have with me when I go to scenic places. If I found myself using my DSLR for more landscapes, then I’d revisit the question of buying the 100S. Of course late some night if I discovered that both the 100S and the 23mm were in stock, they could make a great impulse purchase. But my point is that I don’t see the 100S causing my abandoning anything I can do now, just supplementing it.


Also, don't forget, with an adaptor you can still use your Canon lenses on your GFX....many of them have an image circle that will still cover that sensor.
At the very least, you may have some vignetting but that's always easy to fix in post.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 1, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Also, don't forget, with an adaptor you can still use your Canon lenses on your GFX....many of them have an image circle that will still cover that sensor.
> At the very least, you may have some vignetting but that's always easy to fix in post.


That sounds like fun. I could rent a TS-E lens (17 or 24mm) and make >800MP stitched panoramas, after a bit of cropping. The 100–400mm lens could still be >300mm equivalent. This is getting too tempting. I think (hope) I am through with making other large purchases for a while. I've just spent more than the cost of the 100S on repairs to my house and a rental property. My new Mac Studio and accessories come close. (Apple makes it way too easy to spend thousands of dollars seemingly painlessly with just a few clicks.) I'm not broke yet and anyway have lots and lots of credit.

Just to put more temptation in my path, what is the source of the adaptor to put EF lenses on the 100S?


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 1, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Well, I own and have used a Fuji GFX100, a 101 MP digital medium format camera for a couple years now....and I have to say, having such a breadth of ability to crop as needed IS a nice benefit!!
> 
> Zooming in is fun.
> 
> ...


With the 5Ds R I know there was far less advantage gained using the 500mm F/4 L IS II than using a 24x70mm II. I believe that the benefit of the increased pixel density diminish the better the lens is. Is there a limit, surely there is but at what point does the lens + sensor reach that ratio. Even then when you reach the maximum ratio the lens is capable of, the stability of the lens would be of paramount importance to get you there. 

I never witnessed the issue that some claim that the smaller pixels magnify the camera shake. I did notice the increase in resolution with hand held walk around lenses and it was substantial. If such claims are real would it be almost twice the problem at 100mp?

One benefit might be that with the smaller pixels your dead pixels will be less noticeable in your pics. (presented as an ironic statement)


----------



## Berowne (Jun 1, 2022)

stevelee said:


> That sounds like fun. I could rent a TS-E lens (17 or 24mm) and make >800MP stitched panoramas, after a bit of cropping. The 100–400mm lens could still be >300mm equivalent. This is getting too tempting. I think (hope) I am through with making other large purchases for a while. I've just spent more than the cost of the 100S on repairs to my house and a rental property. My new Mac Studio and accessories come close. (Apple makes it way too easy to spend thousands of dollars seemingly painlessly with just a few clicks.) I'm not broke yet and anyway have lots and lots of credit.
> 
> Just to put more temptation in my path, what is the source of the adaptor to put EF lenses on the 100S?


Gigapixel-Photography: 
1000 MegaPixel Photography? My GigaPixel Journey.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.


Thanks.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 1, 2022)

Those a


David - Sydney said:


> I don't use crop mode in my R5. I crop in post if needed.
> Faster frame rate may be possible (and theoretically lower rolling shutter and flash sync) only if the sensor is clever enough to only read the crop portion of the sensor. Do we have any evidence that Canon sensors have done this in the past?
> 
> Another reason to use crop mode is that for some competitions, cropping (or at least severe cropping) would not be allowed. When underwater, you can't change lenses but activating crop mode could be one advantage in this case.


te great reasons. Thank you.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 1, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Bigger buffer, smaller filesize means less memory used, easier to compose the shots the way you'd actually like them at 17mp. There's several reasons I'm a big fan of having crop mode. I have it mapped to a button on the back of the camera so that I can quickly snap between 1.6x crop and full frame if my subject gets close enough for full frame to be useful.
> A lot of times when I'm photographing wildlife or breaking news, you're just so far away from the subject that you'd be wasting quite literally dozens of gigabytes on empty space. It's a lot faster and easier when you're in crop mode to cull 2000 images of a distant subject at 17mp than have to hassle with 2,000 45mp images that only are using a small portion of the frame.
> 
> If we're talking about a 120mp camera, that's going to be a *serious* difference in filesize. That's easily saving hundreds of gigabytes of empty space and making the buffer far more usable, no matter what the buffer is.
> ...


Thanks that’s all very useful info. Im
Going to give it a try just to experiment.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 2, 2022)

I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.


If Canon follows the 5D s example I would expect they will leave the feature set nearly identical to the R5 and reserve most new features for the R5 II.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 3, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.


I’m similar. An updated R5 but in an R3 body


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 4, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Well, I own and have used a Fuji GFX100, a 101 MP digital medium format camera for a couple years now....and I have to say, having such a breadth of ability to crop as needed IS a nice benefit!!
> 
> Zooming in is fun.
> 
> ...


There is a "wall" simply because of physics, of the wave nature of light (diffraction), see my discussion with Alan F above. That's why I'd prefer to switch to a medium format sensor when I wanted such a huge resolution. Fuji's GFX system is really attractive. But currently I still prefer film when I shoot medium format, because e.g. a 60mm x 60mm film camera has a substantial bigger image size than those 44mm x 33mm sensors. That pronounces the "medium format look" of the images even more and sets them apart from the 35mm world.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 4, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> But currently I still prefer film when I shoot medium format, because e.g. a 60mm x 60mm film camera has a substantial bigger image size than those 44mm x 33mm sensors. That pronounces the "medium format look" of the images even more and sets them apart from the 35mm world.


Dream on !


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 5, 2022)

I don't believe it. Canon at 100MP will have to compete with the Fuji GFX100s. Canon will never touch the IQ. Canon should make the R1 80 to 85 MP, doubling the resolution of the 1DXMKIII.


----------



## JWest (Jun 5, 2022)

stevelee said:


> That sounds like fun. I could rent a TS-E lens (17 or 24mm) and make >800MP stitched panoramas, after a bit of cropping. The 100–400mm lens could still be >300mm equivalent. This is getting too tempting. I think (hope) I am through with making other large purchases for a while. I've just spent more than the cost of the 100S on repairs to my house and a rental property. My new Mac Studio and accessories come close. (Apple makes it way too easy to spend thousands of dollars seemingly painlessly with just a few clicks.) I'm not broke yet and anyway have lots and lots of credit.
> 
> Just to put more temptation in my path, what is the source of the adaptor to put EF lenses on the 100S?


What makes you think a tse lens would help you get an 800 Mp image? The gfx 100s is only 100Mp and you don't even get 2 full frames in a classic max +/- stitching technique. Even with the very annoying 4 piece diagonal method, it's still barely and effective amount of maybe 2-2.5 frames tops. So you are basically lucky to get a 200Mp image by TSE method.

I use the Fringer pro EF-G adapter which has a ring that can be assigned and works well for manual non-communicating lenses to set aperture.

Regarding tele lenses, I have tested with very good results my canon 300/2.8 II IS on the GFX as well as with the 1.4, 2x and even doubled up 2x mkII with 2x Mk III onto it, then camera. The resulting equivalent on gfx is 960mm and autofocus is retained as well as lens IS combining with the Fuji IBIS it's kind of amazing.

The canon 70-200/2.8 II on it's own isn't so good and vignettes the whole range except at 200 but with the 1.4x, it's usable the full length and it makes it almost a similar field of view as on 35mm. 200 x 1.4 = 280 but then x .8 for gfx format = about 220. I shoot the GFX in 5:4 mode so it's even closer to the focal range I'm familiar with seeing.

To be honest though, the GFX 100s doesn't really replace the canon cameras I have in some aspects for certain shooting. It's slower to utilize, ergonomics are ok at best. I have a 5dsr that the gfx IS replacing for how i used that one but it's silly to even compare with the fast and fluid use of my 1DxIII and even my 5DC focuses better and works faster than the GFX.

I'm hoping this canon 100mp deal will be a 1D type body and at least have dynamic range getting into the 14+ stops zone but we shall see.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2022)

JWest said:


> I'm hoping this canon 100mp deal will be a 1D type body and at least have dynamic range getting into the 14+ stops zone but we shall see.


14+ is 2+ more than the present R series.


----------



## JWest (Jun 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 14+ is 2+ more than the present R series.


Yes, it is, exactly my point. The R bodies are barely better DR than my 5dsr in terms of just image quality. I have recently been spoiled by the fuji 33x44 sensor ! But for fast fluid and enjoyable camera operation, I still prefer my 1dx3.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2022)

JWest said:


> Yes, it is, exactly my point. The R bodies are barely better DR than my 5dsr in terms of just image quality. I have recently been spoiled by the fuji 33x44 sensor ! But for fast fluid and enjoyable camera operation, I still prefer my 1dx3.


You won't get 14+ on a 36mm x 24mm sensor, so I am afraid you will have to stick with a larger format.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 5, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Dream on !


Yepp, I start to dream always when I take my Mamiya 6x6 and go out with it


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 5, 2022)

jam05 said:


> So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year. Let hope Canon doesn't ruin it with a cheap crappy LCD on the rear of it.


As others commented already, medium format means bigger image (sensor) sizes. It has often been discussed, also on CR, whether Canon would enter the MF market or not. I doubt they'll ever do, because that still is a very small, specialized market segment. Plus, they now are heavily invested in their transformation to the RF mount, which now looks like a long-term success but still needs investments into the expansion of the RF lens line etc.

For Fujifilm it was a different decision to jump into a new digital MF system, because they already have a long history with MF cameras and a certain reputation. So, besides a small pro photographer segment, like Hasselblad they could hope to attract wealthy amateur photographers with a bit of a luxury taste. Looks like it works well for Fuji, but I haven't checked their latest financial reports.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 5, 2022)

JWest said:


> What makes you think a tse lens would help you get an 800 Mp image? The gfx 100s is only 100Mp and you don't even get 2 full frames in a classic max +/- stitching technique. Even with the very annoying 4 piece diagonal method, it's still barely and effective amount of maybe 2-2.5 frames tops. So you are basically lucky to get a 200Mp image by TSE method.


My 6D2 is just over 26MP. With the 24mm TS-E I shot 19 frames using extremes of shift and rotating in 30º intervals (where the lens clicks) and had Photoshop stitch it all together. It came out about 85MP. So in guessing at the 100S results, I wildly extrapolated and guessed 800MP. There would be more issues with falloff, I realize, so that would be more than optimistic in terms of what would be usable. Reality might not be much more than 300 MP. Since I don't know what I'd really use 100MP for, the difference between 300 and 800 is not significant for me. I wouldn't even try the 400MP mode. If nothing ever moved, that might give you 1200MP with the TS-E, but I am not going there. Obviously for more than playing around, I'd rotate between the 30º clicks, too.


----------



## photographer (Jun 5, 2022)

This one or Fujifilm GFX 100S for portraits? Tough choice…


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 5, 2022)

photographer said:


> This one or Fujifilm GFX 100S for portraits? Tough choice…


Let’s hope you’ve got some blemish free models.


----------



## photographer (Jun 5, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Let’s hope you’ve got some blemish free models.


Good note.  For the first time in my life, I'm considering leaving Canon. What if in 5 years there will be (portraits, glamour,…) FF format only for amateurs like the APS-C today?


----------



## DotCom Editor (Jun 5, 2022)

sanj said:


> Yes, the focus on that camera is not as good as r5. I returned my R3


I have no idea what an R3 is, as I am not seriously considering a mirrorless camera. I was referring to the 1D Mark III, from 2007. Mine was recalled twice, and then sent back yet again for a third round of repairs. Eventually it focused ok, but never lived up to the hype or expectations. And then there was the major recall of the original 24-105mm lens, due to internal flare caused by a reflective screwhead.


----------



## DotCom Editor (Jun 5, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd love a 100MP full frame camera. I love detail in images. It would however cause alot of extra expense. Bigger memory cards, bigger external harddrives and a new laptop. I don't get laptops these days. When cameras were 10MP you could get a 2TB external disk drive. Now we are heading for 100MP images and SSD Drives tend to be 1TB or less. Thank god they created SSD Drives or we'd never be able to process large images. I wonder are CFExpress cards very profitable. They are very expensive and run very hot. None have died yet but I'd wonder are they cooking away until they fail.


I make very large prints on my 44-inch Canon PRO-4000. I'd love 100MP to get full-frame detail at very large print sizes, and I'd also like it for the ability to crop significantly, when I can't get close enough, such as at a concert or sporting event.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> True, they have announced two cameras at once in the past, but not two true flagships.
> 
> The R6 was announced alongside the R5, but the development announcement (8k etc) were solely about the R5. Imho, I guess the R6 was announced alongside the R5 because theirs was a pressing need for a more affordable and capable camera. At the point of the announcement, canon had a „flawed“ R, many people were unhappy with it. It was accompanied with the cheap RP and the headscratcher Ra. It was make or break for canon, so a huge announcement was needed.
> 
> ...



If I remember correctly, the 1D X and the 5D Mark III were officially announced several months apart, but shipped/went on sale the same week in March of 2012.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

northlarch said:


> This is the best explanation I’ve seen for using the 1.6x crop in camera for wildlife. You make good points about having all that data that’s essentially empty anyway with distant subjects. And having the larger subject for tracking. Makes sense to me. Personally I think a faster buffer was more of an issue back in the day; even higher MP cameras move data plenty quickly for my use with moving critters, but to each their own.
> 
> It’s difficult to wrap my head around having a camera that can capture a ton of data and not using it—being stuck with 17MP on that photo forever. The FOMO of “what if” that subject suddenly fills the frame while flying towards me or another subject quickly darts into the scene, and I can’t switch back quickly enough for that photo of a lifetime. Perhaps a refinement that experienced wildlife shooters evolve to—not there yet personally.
> 
> I’ve generally been against the in-camera crop with the R5 but you’ve shifted my perspective a little and going to give it a whirl now. Thanks for the post.



If one maps one of the control buttons to switching between FF and crop mode, changing is quicker than zooming from one end to the other of a large zoom lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's good practice to set a personal limit on the number of photos that one keeps. Since switching to digital in 2002, I've been shooting around 15-20,000 images per year, but I decided long ago to restrict the total number of images in my collection to a maximum of 25,000. It pays to review older images regularly and compare them to current work, throwing out anything that is sub-par, and raising the overall standard.
> 
> I'll typically take around 30 shots of each subject on a given occasion, trying to get the best possible composition, lighting etc. After downloading to my computer, I compare images side by side in LR, whittling them down until I'm left with just 2 or 3 shots of each subject that get edited. After editing I then compare the final results with any similar but older shots that I have, and usually find that the latest "version" is better, so the older ones get thrown out.
> 
> If I had a 100MP camera (I don't want or need one, 45-50MP is enough for me), I'd still keep to a maximum of 25,000 images, but upgrade my storage capacity.



It all depends upon what one is doing. If wedding and event shooters did that, they'd be in trouble the first time a client didn't back up anything and calls for backup copies a few years after the fact.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

masterpix said:


> Well, such a camera will be great for modeling, portraits, landscape, architecture, however, it will have lower ISO and FPS, which will, unless resolved, a draw back for any action photography.
> 
> I just wonder, about the lenses such camera will need to have to produce as sharp images. Cause, as seen before, less pixels still can tolerate optical errors, and images that are sharp on the R6 are not so on the R5 just because the R5 has double the number of pixels on the sensor.



That's only because viewing both at "100%" means you're enlarging the 45MP sensor by over twice the linear magnification as the smaller one.

If you're using a 28 inch 4K monitor with a pixel pitch of 160 ppi, viewing a 20MP image at 100% is looking at a piece of a 34x23 inch enlargement. Viewing a 45MP image at 100% is looking at a piece of a 51x34 inch enlargement.

If you're using a 24 inch FHD monitor with about 96 ppi, the comparative sizes at "100%" are 57x38 and 85x57 inches, respectively.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It all depends upon what one is doing. If wedding and event shooters did that, they'd be in trouble the first time a client didn't back up anything and calls for backup copies a few years after the fact.


Yes that's an obvious exception. I was an industrial/commercial photographer for many years, and of course, everything had to be archived for the clients. My post was aimed at a different audience - hobbyists.

And, of course, there will always be shots (once in a lifetime travel photos, family photos etc) that need to be kept for sentimental reasons, even if they are of poor quality.

But I reiterate the fact that I've found that the quality of my wildlife photography has improved by leaps and bounds due to my practice of regularly reviewing my images, comparing them to older work, and dumping the sub-par stuff. It simply improves the overall standard of my work.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes that's an obvious exception. I was an industrial/commercial photographer for many years, and of course, everything had to be archived for the clients. My post was aimed at a different audience - hobbyists.
> 
> And, of course, there will always be shots (once in a lifetime travel photos, family photos etc) that need to be kept for sentimental reasons, even if they are of poor quality.
> 
> But I reiterate the fact that I've found that the quality of my wildlife photography has improved by leaps and bounds due to my practice of regularly reviewing my images, comparing them to older work, and dumping the sub-par stuff. It simply improves the overall standard of my work.



One can do critical analysis comparing more recent work to past work without deleting the past work, too.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 5, 2022)

photographer said:


> Good note.  For the first time in my life, I'm considering leaving Canon. What if in 5 years there will be (portraits, glamour,…) FF format only for amateurs like the APS-C today?



There are real world limitations.

A silicon wafer and the masks used to make the chip have a high price, which has to be divided over units sold. The larger the sensor, the fewer sensors can be made out of it. Then, the larger the sensor, the fewer the cameras sold. This means higher price per unit.

Wafers aren't clean. There might be dozens of defects (in the silicon itself, dust particles, etc) on it. The larger the chip, the higher the chances there would be a defect in its area, so the number of chips that can be made out of a wafer drops exponentially with its size.

Which is why the Hasselblad H6D-400C's sensor costs $26,000.

450mm wafers are on the horizon, which might lower sensor prices. Then again, the market is shrinking. I would be surprised if digital 645 would become viable option in the next 25 years.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> One can do critical analysis comparing more recent work to past work without deleting the past work, too.


The secondary purpose for deleting past work is of course to free up storage space (the original subject to which I responded).

For hobbyist photographers I see little point in retaining sub-par work, unless its sentimental value is greater than its artistic value (as per examples previously given).

It's not *necessary* to delete the sub-par images if one has endless storage capacity and the patience to review a much greater number of images, but in my experience regular reviewing and culling certainly helps - I don't need 10,000 images of an African elephant, so much better to just keep a couple of dozen of the best shots, and dump the rest. YMMV.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

masterpix said:


> On the other hand, you can always use the camera as B/W. It is not something you can't do right now.



When you use a Bayer masked camera to make B&W images, you're still giving away resolution due to the Bayer mask. 

A crop of a "pure" non-demosaiced B&W image from a sensor with a color filter array looks like this at the pixel level. (Example is from a Fuji X-Trans sensor that has a color filter array with a different pattern than most color filter arrays.)




A 1000% crop (10X magnification of each pixel) of an area in the same image:




The influence of the color filter array pattern is obvious:




The color filter array is functioning the same as when we use color filters in front of the lens with B&W film. Differently colored filters alter the tonal value of colored objects in the scene by differing amounts. In the case of the color filter array, the same objects have different tonal values depending on which microscopic color filter is placed over each photosite (a/k/a sensel, a/k/a "pixel" well) on the sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

noms78 said:


> Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
> 
> For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?



DLA is the point at which diffraction begins to influence sharpness when you view the image on your monitor at one image pixel per one screen pixel AND your eyes can resolve a single pixel on your screen. 

The reason DLA is lower for sensors with higher pixel density is because when you view images at 100% on your screen, higher pixel densities result in in higher enlargement ratios. You're enlarging a 45MP image by a factor of 1.6X greater linear magnification than a 20MP image when you view them both at "100%" on the same screen. If you view both images at the same display size, then the "effective" DLA is the same for both, assuming your eyes can't resolve a single pixel from either image (or your screen is binning multiple pixels anyway to display the entire image on the lower resolution screen).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> The secondary purpose for deleting past work is of course to free up storage space (the original subject to which I responded).
> 
> For hobbyist photographers I see little point in retaining sub-par work, unless its sentimental value is greater than its artistic value (as per examples previously given).
> 
> It's not *necessary* to delete the sub-par images if one has endless storage capacity and the patience to review a much greater number of images, but in my experience regular reviewing and culling certainly helps - I don't need 10,000 images of an African elephant, so much better to just keep a couple of dozen of the best shots, and dump the rest. YMMV.



Who needs to take 10,000 images of an African elephant to get plenty of keepers?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

landscaper said:


> Why has it taken CANON
> 8 YEARS to update their High Resolution Model ?
> 
> So many have Jumped Ship to Fuji GFX system ALREADY
> ...



Because Canon is more focused on giving photographers what they can practically use instead of what they _think_ they want?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Uncle's Rog comments in the first link:
> "So What Did We Learn Today?​Well, mostly nothing, but there are a couple of things.
> First, let me emphasize again that if we had a 150-megapixel camera and shot today’s lenses on it, the images would have more detail than that same lens on your current 36-megapixel camera."
> 
> Putting Michelin Pilot Sport tyres on a Lada is a real investment - it will double the value of the Lada.



No, it will just double the cost.

Value is based on what someone else would be willing to pay to buy it from you.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Who needs to take 10,000 images of an African elephant to get plenty of keepers?


Take my word for it, there are plenty of photographers, including professionals, who will shoot at maximum burst rate and return home with hundreds or thousands of images of a given subject. Some will even keep the whole lot indefinitely, unless they run out of storage space. I know a guy who has about 1000 images of every species of British butterfly. He never culls his images, just hoards them. Makes no sense to me. Over the years, I've probably taken about 200 images of African elephants, all of which most people would probably consider good enough to be "keepers", but I've only kept about 20, as I only want to keep my best work.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Maybe CR will stop peddling such garbage for another decade.



I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that to happen.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Value is based on what someone else would be willing to pay to buy it from you.


It depends on how you define "value".
You appear to think only in terms of monetary value.
There are other values, e.g. artistic, sentimental, etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> Take my word for it, there are plenty of photographers, including professionals, who will shoot at maximum burst rate and return home with hundreds or thousands of images of a given subject. Some will even keep the whole lot indefinitely, unless they run out of storage space. I know a guy who has about 1000 images of every species of British butterfly. He never culls his images, just hoards them. Makes no sense to me. Over the years, I've probably taken about 200 images of African elephants, all of which most people would probably consider good enough to be "keepers", but I've only kept about 20, as I only want to keep my best work.



Maybe you need to keep doing you and don't worry so much about what others do? Insisting that one's way of doing things is the ONLY way of doing something is a sign of insecurity.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> It depends on how you define "value".
> You appear to think only in terms of monetary value.
> There are other values, e.g. artistic, sentimental, etc.



1) It was a tongue in cheek comment.

2) In the context of the comment to which I was responding, it seems to me the intent of the original comment was exactly about monetary value, not artistic nor sentimental. Since when does a new set of high performance tires add artistic or sentimental value to a low performance vehicle?


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Maybe you need to keep doing you and don't worry so much about what others do? Insisting that one's way of doing things is the ONLY way of doing something is a sign of insecurity.


Maybe you are so insecure that you have to challenge everyone here tonight?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Maybe you are so insecure that you have to challenge everyone here tonight?


Although the night isn’t over, I will point out that @Michael Clark did not challenge this reply to his post:



neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it started here when you showed us that you don’t know how image resolution is defined. And it continued here when you showed us that you don’t know how areal resolution is measured (reminder: not in MP). If you’d like to continue this conversation, it should be with you admitting that you were wrong.



Since he brought up the subject of insecurity, it’s worth noting that an inability to admit when one is wrong is a major sign of it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

Berowne said:


> There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
> JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE



Have you tried to reserve time on it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Is 8 MPIX not enough - or why did you upgrade?



When he wanted other improvements and they weren't offered in an 8 MP camera?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)





amorse said:


> It must be exhausting for them to jump to conclusions so quickly



PetaPixel gonna' PetaPixel.


----------



## RickWagoner (Jun 6, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.



With Bird photography you always want the reach (or perceived reach with a crop). Even throwing on a 800mm lens on a full frame is never enough. Bird shooters always want crop in camera because when you spray and pray then try to crop each one down later it would take days to do, esp if you are going out and blasting 900+ photos in a day. Full Frame camera usually offer better features and bodies than crop bodies so lots of bird shooters will go with full frame if they can get a decent FPS and buffer. The old Nikon D750 was a huge hit with bird shooters because of it's crop mode and the advantages that came with it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.





unfocused said:


> If Canon follows the 5D s example I would expect they will leave the feature set nearly identical to the R5 and reserve most new features for the R5 II.



The 5Ds and 5Ds R had a few features the 5D Mark III did not, though it is arguable if some of them made much of a difference for the intended use cases of the 50 MP bodies.

Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter are the first two that come to mind.

Then barely a year later the 5D Mark IV came along with all of the improvements of the 5Ds over the 5D Mark III, plus a few more.

By the time this 100MP+ camera is available, the R5 Mark II might be barely a year away with somewhere around 50-60MP.

There may have been more than a few folks who bought the 5Ds that didn't really want/need 50MP but did want/need more than the 22MP 5D Mark III who wished they had waited another year for the 30MP 5D Mark IV.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I can't find any information about whether the sensor read rate increases in crop mode and hence rolling shutter decreasing. This would show that only the crop lines on the sensor are read vs the full sensor. If the sensor read rate doesn't change from full to crop then the AF system can't be faster - or have I misunderstood?



It's not so much about the readout time as it is about the processing time. If the camera only need read 63% of the sensor's lines for AF, then it can do so at a higher rate per second for each line used than if it is scanning 100% of the sensor's lines. It can cycle through only the middle 63% 160 times in the same amount of time it would take to cycle through the full sensor for 100 times.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Of course, every company says that. Not discontinued until there is a demand - but they won't release new lenses or new bodies (or with very minor updates) until there won't be any demand left.



The statement by Canon specifically said it would be incorrect to assume a decision had already been made that there would be no further development of EOS M bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> One thing I've never really explored much is Canon's diffraction correction that it provides as a post-processing solution, using lens data communicated through the R mount. That always fascinated me, but I've not had much use for it. In this context, it may become more relevant. I wonder how much of a dent something like DLO can make in any introduced diffraction. When first introduced, it required the use of DPP in post. Later, it was included in-camera if you shot JPEG. Wonder if folks have experience with it and can comment.



It's resource intensive and significantly slows down the camera or computer processing it. But the results I've seen, back when it was first introduced in 2012, were rather impressive.

As AI sharpening and AI NR have continued to advance by leaps and bounds since DLO was first introduced, I'm not sure it has the same value today it had back when it was rolled out. The best NR, sharpening, and resize applications today are at least as equally amazing in bringing out "lost" details as DLO was back then.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Not even an f/1.2 will take full advantage of the sensor! What matters is that the overall resolution depends on the resolution of the sensor times the resolution of the lens. So, increasing the resolution of the sensor increases the apparent resolution of any lens.


Really???
The weaker of both resolutions wins - easy to understand.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5Ds and 5Ds R had a few features the 5D Mark III did not, though it is arguable if some of them made much of a difference for the intended use cases of the 50 MP bodies.
> 
> Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter are the first two that come to mind.
> 
> ...


Yes 5DS/R improved on every aspect of the 5DIII - except fps. Better AF was one important improvement but especially the sensor was far better. Expect improvements again in the new 100MPIX model over the R5, and this time maybe with a larger, better sensor and high fps - and who knows if we can get improved stills video capture changing photography in a way the R5 did not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

Bonich said:


> Really???
> The weaker of both resolutions wins - *easy to understand.*


Evidently not for you.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2022)

Bonich said:


> Really???
> The weaker of both resolutions wins - easy to understand.


Learn some basic maths and physics before making such comments. Read this for a start: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html Or if you find that heavy going try Roger Ciccala https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/

*"So What Did We Learn Today?*​Well, mostly nothing, but there are a couple of things.

First, let me emphasize again that if we had a 150-megapixel camera and shot today’s lenses on it, the images would have more detail than that same lens on your current 36-megapixel camera."


----------



## entoman (Jun 6, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Of course, every company says that. Not discontinued until there is a demand - but they won't release new lenses or new bodies (or with very minor updates) until there won't be any demand left.


Just an opinion - I can fully understand that Canon might want to rationalise their product lines by discontinuing the M series in favour of compact RF bodies. Likewise I can see the logic of entrapping novices (who IMO probably comprise the majority of M purchasers) into the RF system.

But I think if M is discontinued then it's rather sad, as they provide an excellent compact system, and one which is capable of further development. I think it all hinges on how the Asian market reacts to the R10 - the M series is still extremely popular there, but if the cameras are perceived by fashion-conscious people as outdated, then we may see them discontinued once existing stocks dry up.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 6, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Yes 5DS/R improved on every aspect of the 5DIII - except fps. Better AF was one important improvement but especially the sensor was far better. Expect improvements again in the new 100MPIX model over the R5, and this time maybe with a larger, better sensor and high fps - and who knows if we can get improved stills video capture changing photography in a way the R5 did not.


I really liked my 5DIII (it unfortunately went for an unexpected swim in the sea). The 5DSR for me always has been a strange camera. Very good in a studio, very good at ISO 100 on a tripod. Very slow as a camera, as in unresponsive after a few shots have been taken waiting for the buffer to clear. I found the 5DIII a great camera, a great all rounder. A no excuse camera, generally it was the users fault if you didn’t get a decent camera. I found the 5DIV an allround improvement on the 5DIII. The 5DSR I always felt it was rushed to get 50MP out and that it was at the time a stretch too far .


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It's not so much about the readout time as it is about the processing time. If the camera only need read 63% of the sensor's lines for AF, then it can do so at a higher rate per second for each line used than if it is scanning 100% of the sensor's lines. It can cycle through only the middle 63% 160 times in the same amount of time it would take to cycle through the full sensor for 100 times.


The processing time is not as relevant as it is designed for full sensor reading. Rolling shutter is the readout speed and the faster the portion of the sensor read then - in theory - the reduction in rolling shutter. 
The ultimate goal/extension to this theory is a global shutter. The sensor information can be stored temporarily waiting for the processor to process it. The development of stacked sensors is to reduce the readout speed and reduce noise by having the amplifiers as close as possible to the sensor


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 7, 2022)

JWest said:


> Yes, it is, exactly my point. The R bodies are barely better DR than my 5dsr in terms of just image quality. I have recently been spoiled by the fuji 33x44 sensor ! But for fast fluid and enjoyable camera operation, I still prefer my 1dx3.


2-stop improvement in the DR is 'barely better'??


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Let’s hope you’ve got some blemish free models.


Well, there's always post production....I mean, it isn't like anyone doing portraits is selling them to clients straight out of the camera, you know?


And too, the really FUN thing about mirrorless cameras, is that you can adapt pretty much ANY older manual lens to them...and there is some GREAT vintage glass out there that is perfect for portraiture and may soften some images if that's what you wish.

I like to run my GFX100 with adapted Hasselblad V system glass on it at times and it looks great. I sometimes use it with the speed booster to get the whole lens image onto the smaller GFX sensor or sometimes not....

When I get into the RF system, I plan to adapt lenses to it too, whichever camera I get...there's a lot of fun and endless possibilities with mirrorless and lens adaptation out there.

cayenne


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5Ds and 5Ds R had a few features the 5D Mark III did not, though it is arguable if some of them made much of a difference for the intended use cases of the 50 MP bodies.
> 
> Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter are the first two that come to mind.
> 
> ...


In the past, with FSI sensors, as your #pixels get too high you end up with all your sensor being non-pixel sensing support circuitry.
But new BSI has the potential that the full sensor well depth is always there, no matter how tiny the pixels being sensed. So I could see BSI technology allowing much higher resolutions while maintaining a similar IQ, which is a win in potential resolution at the cost of only much higher data storage requirements.

This almost begs the question of: If they introduce the same R5 successor in a 50-60MP version and a 100+MP version at the same price, which would you want? Most would opt for 100+ just assuming it's the best choice. I might opt for the 50-60MP sensor at the moment taking storage costs into account, but would probably wait to see some test results before knowing which was better for my use cases.

But either way, I'm eagerly waiting for the R5 style successor!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 8, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> This almost begs the question of: If they introduce the same R5 successor in a 50-60MP version and a 100+MP version at the same price, which would you want? Most would opt for 100+ just assuming it's the best choice.


Most who are active on this site might, but taking the wider and majority usage I’m not so sure. I found it interesting that each year in Lens Rentals “Top Twenty most rented gear of the year” list the “high mp” version of a manufacturer’s model line (ie Sony A7R vs A7 for instance) never makes the list. Not once.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just an opinion - I can fully understand that Canon might want to rationalise their product lines by discontinuing the M series in favour of compact RF bodies. Likewise I can see the logic of entrapping novices (who IMO probably comprise the majority of M purchasers) into the RF system.
> 
> But I think if M is discontinued then it's rather sad, as they provide an excellent compact system, and one which is capable of further development. I think it all hinges on how the Asian market reacts to the R10 - the M series is still extremely popular there, but if the cameras are perceived by fashion-conscious people as outdated, then we may see them discontinued once existing stocks dry up.



I agree and it does not even need that many resources to keep it up to date. For example just get the R10 insides and put it in a slightly smaller M mount body and you have an up to date M camera. They did the same with the 90D/M6II. The insides are identical 90%.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> ...This almost begs the question of: If they introduce the same R5 successor in a 50-60MP version and a 100+MP version at the same price, which would you want? Most would opt for 100+ just assuming it's the best choice. I might opt for the 50-60MP sensor at the moment taking storage costs into account, but would probably wait to see some test results before knowing which was better for my use cases...





Sporgon said:


> Most who are active on this site might, but taking the wider and majority usage I’m not so sure. I found it interesting that each year in Lens Rentals “Top Twenty most rented gear of the year” list the “high mp” version of a manufacturer’s model line (ie Sony A7R vs A7 for instance) never makes the list. Not once.


I would take the 50-60 mp version, because there is no free lunch.

They won't be the same price. The larger file sizes will require compromises, including less room in the buffer for bursts. Even at CRaw, the files will be larger and eat up more resources. There will be other, subtle differences that make the 100 mp body less appealing.

I've gotten to the point where I really prefer purpose-built bodies. I have the R3 and the R5 and choose which to use based on what I need/want at the time. I'd rather add an R7 to my collection than use a 100mp body if I want more pixels on the subject because I find extreme cropping is seldom satisfactory. You might be able to enlarge the subject, but getting it in focus is much harder.

Just my personal preference.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I would take the 50-60 mp version, because there is no free lunch.
> 
> They won't be the same price. The larger file sizes will require compromises, including less room in the buffer for bursts. Even at CRaw, the files will be larger and eat up more resources. There will be other, subtle differences that make the 100 mp body less appealing.
> 
> ...


Yes, the file size getting so darn big is a serious issue to me since I take a lot of photos and the cost of memory in a Mac is high and the choices of internal TB's limited. Sure, you can add external SSD's, but I'd rather not have to lug around anything external than I have to. Also, higher MP sensors will probably take longer to read the sensor and store it internally. And higher MP will come with a higher cost and probably higher heat and shorter battery life.

I'd much rather Canon keep the 45MP sensor (or 60MP) and increase the resolution of the EVF or back LCD (or even the back LCD size if possible), or give it GPS or other new features previously mentioned.

I go to a lot of trouble to take sharp subject photos with big blurred backgrounds, and with a much bigger MP sensor I would be surprised if I see much sharper subject images and of course it won't matter for the blurred backgrounds. But when they come out with one and if the sharpness is noticeably better then I'll be glad they offered it. We'll just have to see when it comes out.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 8, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Most who are active on this site might, but taking the wider and majority usage I’m not so sure. I found it interesting that each year in Lens Rentals “Top Twenty most rented gear of the year” list the “high mp” version of a manufacturer’s model line (ie Sony A7R vs A7 for instance) never makes the list. Not once.


My guess is that if you need one of those bodies, you know who you are, and you buy one. I would think a one-off high resolution project would not come along that often.

So far I have rented just a couple TS-E lenses, fun to play with and suitable for a few things I wanted to try out, but otherwise would just sit on the shelf for years at a time. A friend and his wife recently took a river cruise in France. He didn't want to carry his best gear with him, but he still wanted to shoot Raw and have more flexibility than with a phone. He knew I used the G5X II for travel, and he tried to buy one, but they were out of stock everywhere he looked. So he rented one. (He came over here a few days before the trip to familiarize himself with the controls and ask me questions. I offered to loan him mine or my old G7X II, but he said that he had dropped cameras in the water when on fishing trips, and didn't want to risk losing mine on a cruise.) He said the camera and the rental went well for him.


----------



## acousticengineer (Jun 8, 2022)

It appears I'm waiting for the next R3 with more MP but not 100MP. The R3 was introduced November 27, 2021. Does anyone guess there will be an R3-like introduction (I do much more pictures than videos) with, say, 60 - 80 MP before end of this year? That would be one year from R3. Or does anyone guess that, say, R3II comes every two years (or more?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2022)

acousticengineer said:


> It appears I'm waiting for the next R3 with more MP but not 100MP. The R3 was introduced November 27, 2021. Does anyone guess there will be an R3-like introduction (I do much more pictures than videos) with, say, 60 - 80 MP before end of this year? That would be one year from R3. Or does anyone guess that, say, R3II comes every two years (or more?)


Very unlikely. The 1-series has been on a 4-year refresh cycle. It's also possible (perhaps even likely) that the R3 was a one-off, and there will be no R3II.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 8, 2022)

acousticengineer said:


> It appears I'm waiting for the next R3 with more MP but not 100MP. The R3 was introduced November 27, 2021. Does anyone guess there will be an R3-like introduction (I do much more pictures than videos) with, say, 60 - 80 MP before end of this year? That would be one year from R3. Or does anyone guess that, say, R3II comes every two years (or more?)


I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!


As usual there will be a of whining when the R1 finally hits. People have poured so many unrealistic conflicting expectations into that body that it is bound to disappoint. If folks can’t find what they want in the existing lineup they aren’t trying.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As usual there will be a of whining when the R1 finally hits. People have poured so many unrealistic conflicting expectations into that body that it is bound disappoint. If folks can’t find what they want in the existing lineup they aren’t trying.


I expect the R1 to make a lot of people (that can afford it) very happy. My personal guess is that it will have a fast QP BSI sensor with a reasonable MP count (~45?). It will have other bells and whistles, but I won't guess any further there. But I'm in the "smaller body" camp so I'd still prefer a R5 II to come out.


----------



## JohnC (Jun 9, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!


Speaking of the R3, it only took me 2 weeks to get one from Canon direct (delivered 2 days ago)


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2022)

JohnC said:


> Speaking of the R3, it only took me 2 weeks to get one from Canon direct (delivered 2 days ago)


That's good to hear that Canon has (hopefully) got enough availability now. Good for them, and for us.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> In the past, with FSI sensors, as your #pixels get too high you end up with all your sensor being non-pixel sensing support circuitry.
> But new BSI has the potential that the full sensor well depth is always there, no matter how tiny the pixels being sensed. So I could see BSI technology allowing much higher resolutions while maintaining a similar IQ, which is a win in potential resolution at the cost of only much higher data storage requirements.
> 
> This almost begs the question of: If they introduce the same R5 successor in a 50-60MP version and a 100+MP version at the same price, which would you want? Most would opt for 100+ just assuming it's the best choice. I might opt for the 50-60MP sensor at the moment taking storage costs into account, but would probably wait to see some test results before knowing which was better for my use cases.
> ...



Canon has been using gapless micro-lenses above the circuitry for at least a decade or so. Almost all of that light previously "lost" to circuitry is now funneled into the well. BSI has advantages, as do stacked layer sensors, but the loss of area to circuitry is nowhere near the issue it was 15-20 years ago.

As to resolution: I'd get an R5 tomorrow if I could justify the cost/benefit in terms of revenue stream. But I wouldn't necessarily be thrilled with even the 45MP it offers. I do want more than the 20 MP offered by the R6, though, and there isn't much choice in between at the moment in the RF line. So I'm still shooting with a 30MP 5D Mark IV for my FF body. 

I'd love a 32MP APS-C body because I would use it for a different use case than the FF bodies and would rather have a speedy 32MP APS-C sensor than an 82 MP FF camera with the much larger files sizes, not to mention cost. Unfortunately, with no vertical grip available for it, I doubt I'll be getting an R7. My old shoulder makes it difficult for me to shoot in portrait orientation without vertical controls.

I have absolutely no need for a 100 MP+ camera. Most of my work these days is displayed digitally, either web based or on relatively low resolution monitors (2K is only 3.7 MP, 4K is only 8.8 MP). I can't remember the last time I've had anything printed larger than 24x16. 30MP is fine for that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Most who are active on this site might, but taking the wider and majority usage I’m not so sure. I found it interesting that each year in Lens Rentals “Top Twenty most rented gear of the year” list the “high mp” version of a manufacturer’s model line (ie Sony A7R vs A7 for instance) never makes the list. Not once.



Rental patterns don't necessarily reflect overall sales patterns, though. For some things, different types of users rent vs. buy. For others, people buy what they plan to use frequently and only rent what they will occasionally use.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I agree and it does not even need that many resources to keep it up to date. For example just get the R10 insides and put it in a slightly smaller M mount body and you have an up to date M camera. They did the same with the 90D/M6II. The insides are identical 90%.



For shooting video, maybe. But for shooting stills with an eye level viewfinder they are significantly different. Optical VF vs. detachable electronic VF that ties up the hot show when no PC terminal is provided. Dedicated PDAF array vs. on sensor hybrid DPAF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The processing time is not as relevant as it is designed for full sensor reading. Rolling shutter is the readout speed and the faster the portion of the sensor read then - in theory - the reduction in rolling shutter.
> The ultimate goal/extension to this theory is a global shutter. The sensor information can be stored temporarily waiting for the processor to process it. The development of stacked sensors is to reduce the readout speed and reduce noise by having the amplifiers as close as possible to the sensor



We're talking about AF speed, not output image quality.

In terms of how many scan cycles per second the camera can do AF, it's all about processing time which is directly impacted by data volume. Even if one had a global shutter, which no camera like the R3, R5, α1, α9, or z1 yet has, it would still be about how long it takes the camera to process that information and move the AF system in response to that data.

The camera can't store that data to be processed later and use it to effectively control AF until it has processed that data in the way it needs to in order to use that data for AF purposes.

No one cares if rolling shutter influences AF speed, because the algorithms can compensate for the distorted shapes. People only care if rolling shutter affects the captured image.

No matter how fast a sensor can be read out, it will always take less time to process the data from only 2/3 of the lines that it will to process all of the lines when talking about using that data to control AF response.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I've gotten to the point where I really prefer purpose-built bodies. I have the R3 and the R5 and choose which to use based on what I need/want at the time.



*^^^^^^T.H.I.S^^^^^^*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Learn some basic maths and physics before making such comments. Read this for a start: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html Or if you find that heavy going try Roger Ciccala https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/
> 
> *"So What Did We Learn Today?*​Well, mostly nothing, but there are a couple of things.
> 
> First, let me emphasize again that if we had a 150-megapixel camera and shot today’s lenses on it, the images would have more detail than that same lens on your current 36-megapixel camera."



But the $10,000 question is will you get 5X, or even 2-3X as many lp/mm by spending 2-3X as much? 

As one approaches the absolute resolution limits of the lens (the so-called diffraction cutoff frequency), the gain from significantly increased sensor resolution becomes more and more miniscule.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But the $10,000 question is will you get 5X, or even 2-3X as many lp/mm by spending 2-3X as much?
> 
> As one approaches the absolute resolution limits of the lens (the so-called diffraction cutoff frequency), the gain from significantly increased sensor resolution becomes more and more miniscule.


Few would disagree that money spent on photographic equipment follows the law of diminishing returns. But, sometimes the miniscule increase is just enough to make it worthwhile (like that extra degree of waterproofing, for example).


----------



## Rocky (Jun 10, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> There are real world limitations.
> 
> A silicon wafer and the masks used to make the chip have a high price, which has to be divided over units sold. The larger the sensor, the fewer sensors can be made out of it. Then, the larger the sensor, the fewer the cameras sold. This means higher price per unit.
> 
> ...


The manufacturing cost alone will not be $26,000. However if you add the mask cost ( at least 20 for the wafer and a few more for the micro lenses) for a limited amount of wafer(due to very low volume production) and the testing cost of individual sensor. Then the $26,000 may be reasonable.


----------



## angelisland (Jun 10, 2022)

People salivating for more REZ here in the forums.

I am in the commercial (advertising) photography world, shooting and producing for companies like L'Oreal, LVMH, J Walter Thompson, Apple, Google, Amazon, Williams-Sonoma, Sephora, Martha Stewart…etc etc.
No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking for more pixels.

Just my two cents, from commercial experience.

Cheers.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has been using gapless micro-lenses above the circuitry for at least a decade or so. Almost all of that light previously "lost" to circuitry is now funneled into the well. BSI has advantages, as do stacked layer sensors, but the loss of area to circuitry is nowhere near the issue it was 15-20 years ago.
> 
> As to resolution: I'd get an R5 tomorrow if I could justify the cost/benefit in terms of revenue stream. But I wouldn't necessarily be thrilled with even the 45MP it offers. I do want more than the 20 MP offered by the R6, though, and there isn't much choice in between at the moment in the RF line. So I'm still shooting with a 30MP 5D Mark IV for my FF body.
> 
> ...


I understand your needs about a vertical grip based on your shoulder. With that in mind, do you have a R3? If not, wouldn't that be a good compromise in a gripped body for you right now?

As far as image MP, I sometime make panoramas of lots of images and print them (myself) up to 8' on a side at 600 DPI (and yes, I drop the DPI lower when I have to). More frequently I just print a single R5 image at large scale and the (usually cropped to taste) 45MP file is nice, with the sharpness & big background blur of the RF 100-500L really appreciated. So I do use high MP's. Would a 100+ MP sensor really give me better results? I'm guessing that it would (based on what I've heard from AlanF), but I wouldn't look forward to more TB storage for it. But I'd make it happen somehow if I got it on a non-gripped body (since I'm OK doing the 90 degree flip).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I understand your needs about a vertical grip based on your shoulder. With that in mind, do you have a R3? If not, wouldn't that be a good compromise in a gripped body for you right now?
> 
> As far as image MP, I sometime make panoramas of lots of images and print them (myself) up to 8' on a side at 600 DPI (and yes, I drop the DPI lower when I have to). More frequently I just print a single R5 image at large scale and the (usually cropped to taste) 45MP file is nice, with the sharpness & big background blur of the RF 100-500L really appreciated. So I do use high MP's. Would a 100+ MP sensor really give me better results? I'm guessing that it would (based on what I've heard from AlanF), but I wouldn't look forward to more TB storage for it. But I'd make it happen somehow if I got it on a non-gripped body (since I'm OK doing the 90 degree flip).



If I can't justify the cost/return on investment of the $3,800, 45MP R5, what do you think the numbers for the $6,000, 20 MP R3 look like? 

Instead of using a 120-300mm/2.8 with either the 7D Mark II (same pixel density as a 50MP FF camera) or 30 MP 5D Mark IV to shoot sports under lights at night, I'd need to spend what a 400/2.8 costs to get roughly the same number of pixels on subject for field sports at night. 

Even comparing a 32MP APS-C camera + 70-200/2.8, like the upcoming R7, to get close to the same number of pixels on subjects almost 100 yards away at the other end of a football/soccer field or from behind home plate to the warning track (or vice versa) for baseball with a 24MP FF camera I'd need a 600/2.8 (which is not available at any price...) 

R7 + RF70-200/2.8 = $4,300.
R3 + RF400/2.8 = $18,000 plus the need for another body and shorter zoom lens for when the action is too close for 400mm

There's no way a $6,000 camera and a $12,000 lens makes sense for anyone shooting local youth and high school sports and needing to be, at the very worst, revenue neutral.

Stitching multiple images doesn't really work that well for sports/action.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Rental patterns don't necessarily reflect overall sales patterns, though. For some things, different types of users rent vs. buy. For others, people buy what they plan to use frequently and only rent what they will occasionally use.


Can’t disagree with your view on rental patterns, however, those who own the high mp versions then need to rent the “normal” mid level mp model ? That would seem odd to me. Personally I don’t think the very high mp version of a model range is anything like as popular as many of those who frequent the likes of CR would like to think. 
As we inevitably go higher and higher, the R5 is after all very high res / output, the “high mp” model may become even more niche and if so I’d expect it to be sold at quite a premium.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Well, there's always post production....I mean, it isn't like anyone doing portraits is selling them to clients straight out of the camera, you know?
> 
> 
> cayenne


I have yet to come across a model over the age of about 21 who wants ultra sharp, ultra high res images of themselves !! And don’t get me on to weddings of middle aged couples !


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2022)

cayenne said:


> And too, the really FUN thing about mirrorless cameras, is that you can adapt pretty much ANY older manual lens to them...and there is some GREAT vintage glass out there that is perfect for portraiture and may soften some images if that's what you wish.
> 
> cayenne


Regarding mirrorless being suitable for adapting old glass, I agree with you 100% . I’ve created some interesting images using my collection of 1960’s era Takumar lenses adapted to an RP. In fact the user interface in terms of focus peaking and allowing practical magnification for pin point focus accuracy very quickly is actually making these lenses viable in a live shoot I think. I don’t want to bore people here on a 100mp thread with a picture, but as I know you like these old lenses I’ll pm you with one taken on a 1964 Takumar 105/2.8, which is a rather beautiful lens.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 11, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> If I can't justify the cost/return on investment of the $3,800, 45MP R5, what do you think the numbers for the $6,000, 20 MP R3 look like?
> 
> Instead of using a 120-300mm/2.8 with either the 7D Mark II (same pixel density as a 50MP FF camera) or 30 MP 5D Mark IV to shoot sports under lights at night, I'd need to spend what a 400/2.8 costs to get roughly the same number of pixels on subject for field sports at night.
> 
> ...


That makes a lot of sense. If the subject you're most interested in is distant enough to be too small on the sensor, than a more affordable & compact APS sensor with more pixel density would indeed give you more pixels on the subject, and probably would give you better results. I guess you need something like an R7 in a new more compact (& affordable) gripped body?


----------



## Kuja (Jun 11, 2022)

angelisland said:


> People salivating for more REZ here in the forums.
> 
> I am in the commercial (advertising) photography world, shooting and producing for companies like L'Oreal, LVMH, J Walter Thompson, Apple, Google, Amazon, Williams-Sonoma, Sephora, Martha Stewart…etc etc.
> No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking for more pixels.
> ...



From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not _specifically_ asking for more pixels.

They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.

The same photo can get an extreme vertical crop for a billboard that will go on a side of a tall building, and an extreme horizontal crop that will be printed on the side of a bus, a wide building, or a wide street billboard.




The first photo on the left is already a crop of the original file,
so the last thin horizontal photo on the bottom right is an extreme crop of the already cropped file.


The 50 MP of my 5DS sometimes are BARELY enough.
There were occasions that I could be in trouble with less pixels, so I can't wait for the highest possible MP body. 

When the larger DOF is needed I just refuse to obsess about the diffraction limits.
When I'm not pixel peeping at 100% and with some judicious sharpening I can get away even with f11 and get great results. 

Yes, I could get a Fuji, but for various reasons I prefer Canon (AF, the lenses, form factor, etc, etc...).

....

So, PLEASE (pretty please!) let me have my 100+ MP Canon body. 

I PROMISE, It's existence won't hurt you in any way!!! 


PS
This is not addressed directly to @angelisland , but to all people who can't imagine that someone might need a camera like this.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 12, 2022)

Kuja said:


> From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not _specifically_ asking for more pixels.
> 
> They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.


Exactly. Also, they make your photos last longer for sales. Hardly anyone buys my 8 MPIX pictures anymore - even those that are with "evergreen" subjects. Finally, one great shot can be cropped to different format and sizes - making more than one picture available when you have enough pixels to work with (by splitting one frame into 2 or 3 separate shots). As late as last week I was told "send the largest file you've got".


----------



## acousticengineer (Jun 12, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!


So 
R3 = November 27, 2021 introduced
Add four years to a not yet Rx (whatever it is, more MP all else being same)
Rx = November 27, 2024
This thread is very big projecting out to November 27, 2024
Add production ramp up, delivery, say, 9 months (real R3 experience) to an Rx
Rx = November 27, 2024 + 9 months, ... realistic availability
Rx = August 27, 2025 realistic availability
I'm not sure I can wait that long for a stacked sensor, higher MP, Eye Control, QP autofocus, ...
If I get the R3 now, and sell it when Rx available, not sure how much R3 worth selling at that time.
But I get the use of a new R3 from now until August 27, 2025
That's four years of R3 = $2K/year less resale, what can resale be in 4 years? $1500?
$6K-$ resale = $6K - $1.5K = $4.5K -----> $4.5K/4 years = $1,125/year is less than rental if do 4 global shoots per year
Thoughts


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 13, 2022)

acousticengineer said:


> So
> R3 = November 27, 2021 introduced
> Add four years to a not yet Rx (whatever it is, more MP all else being same)
> Rx = November 27, 2024
> ...


To me, if you want an R3 and you can afford it, I'd get it now and enjoy it for as long as you can and be happy no matter what it's worth when you sell it. But that's just me (I'm a hobbyist and not earning enough money with it to cover my Canon investments which is fine with me).

I think it's possible that the R1 comes out in a year or so and you may have wished then that you got it instead of the R3, but that's up to you regarding whether it's worth it to wait for the R1 or not.

Either way, I don't think it's worth worrying about a R3 successor now as it will probably be one of the last bodies of many that are introduced by Canon in the next few years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> To me, if you want an R3 and you can afford it, I'd get it now and enjoy it for as long as you can and be happy no matter what it's worth when you sell it. But that's just me (I'm a hobbyist and not earning enough money with it to cover my Canon investments which is fine with me).
> 
> I think it's possible that the R1 comes out in a year or so and you may have wished then that you got it instead of the R3, but that's up to you regarding whether it's worth it to wait for the R1 or not.
> 
> Either way, I don't think it's worth worrying about a R3 successor now as it will probably be one of the last bodies of many that are introduced by Canon in the next few years.


Agreed. I buy cameras to use them, not for resale value. I used my 1D X for 10 years. $650/year is pretty good, and I’ll probably get $1K or so selling it. 

I preordered the R3 and I’m happy with it. If the R1 tempts me, I’ll buy that and sell the R3 for whatever it’s worth at that point. 

I wonder if the R1 will have eye controlled AF?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...I wonder if the R1 will have eye controlled AF?


It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.


----------



## acousticengineer (Jun 13, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.


I'm going to have to rent an R3 for a week and test Eye Control. It is a prime reason I am leaning to R3, the others being back illuminated sensor, the grip, fast readout, Ethernet port, Smartphone Link Adapter. I'm selling to myself, you guys are perceptive, and I have the money.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It would be nice it future versions of eye-controlled AF actually worked. I have yet to find any good use for this function. Too slow to react for sports. Selections are too random. Bounces around the viewfinder randomly. Selects the wrong subject, even when I am looking at the subject. Maybe it is just my glasses, but I put this in the same category as the control bar thingy on the original R.


Maybe it is because you are unfocused.


----------



## acousticengineer (Jun 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Maybe it is because you are unfocused.


Maybe I am too focused on too many secondary details. Or my internal brain's Eye Control did not follow / respond correctly. But your point is well taken.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2022)

acousticengineer said:


> Maybe I am too focused on too many secondary details. Or my internal brain's Eye Control did not follow / respond correctly. But your point is well taken.


I am afraid you missed the joke: it was @unfocused I replied to after he said he couldn't focus.


----------



## angelisland (Jun 14, 2022)

I would have no problem with a 100 megapixel camera, as long as you can choose RAW file sizes.
The 100 megapixel sensor would be 25% more resolution than 50mb.
I’m betting you could simply up rez the 50 mp file to whatever size you want, no one’s gonna know from a billboard distance. Or even a bus - they are low rez canvas- type prints anyway. Dots the size of golf balls - well almost .
They all look like azz close-up due to the printing and medium.
I live part time in Manhattan, where there are billboards everywhere, buses plastered with imagery…large ads on subway platforms.
Anyway as long as we don’t always have to deal with 150mb raw files, it’s fine with me.
(Here in SF there are Apple billboards printed from iPhone images which look as good as any other billboard on the avenue.)


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 14, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!



No, the R1 will come out and we'll all complain about something.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> That makes a lot of sense. If the subject you're most interested in is distant enough to be too small on the sensor, than a more affordable & compact APS sensor with more pixel density would indeed give you more pixels on the subject, and probably would give you better results. I guess you need something like an R7 in a new more compact (& affordable) gripped body?



Not necessarily more affordable. I think $1,500 is about as good as it gets for anything remotely capable of what I need. I was surprised that the price at announcement time was not higher, and I expected about what we got, with the exception that I assumed it would be designed to accommodate a grip.

I could use an R7 as is if it was designed to work with a well integrated grip. 

I would prefer a more hardened version, even if it cost a bit more, say around $2K. I'd also prefer it was about the same size and had the same control layout of the R5/R6. But I have no illusion that any of those preferences will be forthcoming.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 16, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Not necessarily more affordable. I think $1,500 is about as good as it gets for anything remotely capable of what I need. I was surprised that the price at announcement time was not higher, and I expected about what we got, with the exception that I assumed it would be designed to accommodate a grip.
> 
> I could use an R7 as is if it was designed to work with a well integrated grip.
> 
> I would prefer a more hardened version, even if it cost a bit more, say around $2K. I'd also prefer it was about the same size and had the same control layout of the R5/R6. But I have no illusion that any of those preferences will be forthcoming.


Well, I meant more affordable than a new Canon FF gripped body probably would be, which would be very expensive. Hence an APS gripped body would have to be more affordable than a FF gripped body. But I'd be somewhat surprised to see a gripped APS Canon, which would remind me of the (not-so-well-received) gripped Olympus MFT body that came out with a small sensor in a (seemingly) big body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> Well, I meant more affordable than a new Canon FF gripped body probably would be, which would be very expensive. Hence an APS gripped body would have to be more affordable than a FF gripped body. But I'd be somewhat surprised to see a gripped APS Canon, which would remind me of the (not-so-well-received) gripped Olympus MFT body that came out with a small sensor in a (seemingly) big body.



By "well integrated grip" I meant the R7 as is with an optional attachable grip that included a minimal set of functional controls on the add-on grip: shutter button, main control wheel, M.Fn. button, AF-ON button, AE-L button, joystick, etc...


----------



## scyrene (Jun 21, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I really liked my 5DIII (it unfortunately went for an unexpected swim in the sea). The 5DSR for me always has been a strange camera. Very good in a studio, very good at ISO 100 on a tripod. Very slow as a camera, as in unresponsive after a few shots have been taken waiting for the buffer to clear. I found the 5DIII a great camera, a great all rounder. A no excuse camera, generally it was the users fault if you didn’t get a decent camera. I found the 5DIV an allround improvement on the 5DIII. The 5DSR I always felt it was rushed to get 50MP out and that it was at the time a stretch too far .


Maybe it was partly the memory cards you were using? I went from 5D3 to 5DS and found it almost identical in its behaviour, but I made sure to get a more modern, higher capacity card before upgrading. The only reason I went back to the older body was to save storage space and processing time on my computer.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Maybe it was partly the memory cards you were using? I went from 5D3 to 5DS and found it almost identical in its behaviour, but I made sure to get a more modern, higher capacity card before upgrading. The only reason I went back to the older body was to save storage space and processing time on my computer.


Yes could be. The cards I have aren't slow but there a newer faster ones. I've aquired a few I must see if they make a difference.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

Kuja said:


> From my commercial experience, the clients, who are not so proficient in technicalities, are not _specifically_ asking for more pixels.
> 
> They are just EXPECTING them when they are doing the extreme crops of my photos.
> 
> ...


Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!


With that example, it seems that it would be relatively easy to extend the background in any direction or magnitude desired using Photoshop.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2022)

@LogicExtremist and @neuroanatomist, I think you are missing the point. Clients want the image editable for any medium and format. Anything from a low res web header to the side of a building. The photographer isn’t going to be making those changes, the graphic designer is. So you have to deliver an image that has maximum flexibility. Besides, if the client expects high res images that’s what you have to deliver whether or not you agree.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With that example, it seems that it would be relatively easy to extend the background in any direction or magnitude desired using Photoshop.


I was thinking that too, I've done that before when I wanted more width in photos I shot in portrait.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

unfocused said:


> @LogicExtremist and @neuroanatomist, I think you are missing the point. Clients want the image editable for any medium and format. Anything from a low res web header to the side of a building. The photographer isn’t going to be making those changes, the graphic designer is. So you have to deliver an image that has maximum flexibility. Besides, if the client expects high res images that’s what you have to deliver whether or not you agree.


What would be higher than a 45MB x 5 pano image, that's a whopping 225MB that can be cropped anywhere for convenience, with the correct aspect ratio too.
I get your point, yeah, huge MP is super convenient for cropping in a single shot, but conversely its painful for handling bulk images though. Which is probably why studio photographers take ages to set up and stage a few shots with tethered cameras using high MP cameras, whereas sports photographers who shoot large numbers of images use more manageable file sizes. Horses for courses, of course!

Hmmm, got me thinking, with enough mega (giga?) pixels, I could shoot landscapes from the next state, saving on travel. Just crop out a tiny square, toss 95% of the pixels, and get a perfectly printable image!


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image? My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!


Isn’t that called the Brenizer method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Isn’t that called the Brenizer method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method


Thanks for sharing that, I looked it up and learned something new!  - "_The Brenizer method increases the effective sensor size of the camera, simulating the characteristics of large format photography_". Honestly, I didn't know it was a thing, I just came up with the idea after reading through the problem of getting a long, wide photo with a person in it. I didn't think about it long nough to consider the possibility of being able to get a shallow depth of field, which when done at a wide angle imitates the qualities of a large format article. Cool!


----------



## Kuja (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about our type of work, but I'm curious, *couldn't you shoot this as a portrait image like the first or second photo, at maximum resolution, then take shots of the periphery to either side with the same perspective and stitch them together to construct a panoramic shot to look like the lower image?* My assumption is that way, your close-up doesn't have less detail than the widest image where the subject is much smaller. Since you're going wider in the photos but not higher, you lose so much in the first crop, in the most detailed photo, the majority of the image (around 75%?) is being cropped out in terms of height, then it's a like a crop of a crop in the other photos, so I thought I'd ask!


Unfortunately, the answer is no. 

On this photo shoot i took thousands (yes, thousands!) of photos, not knowing what their final use will be.
I work with the camera that is handheld, I'm moving around the model and taking each shot from a different angle, so the stitching would not work because of the ever changing perspective.






neuroanatomist said:


> With that example, it seems that it would be relatively easy to extend the background in any direction or magnitude desired using Photoshop.





LogicExtremist said:


> I was thinking that too, I've done that before when I wanted more width in photos I shot in portrait.



I was talking about the principle, hoping that you would use your imagination. 

Ok, maybe the last example was't the best, since the body position is vertical, so here is another one with the more horizontal body pose.
If its not wide enough, please imagine that the client wanted model's arms wide spread  :







Imagine that during a big photoshoot, that can take 10-12 hours straight, for each model's pose I have to take additional photos of model's arms and hands that might be needed for horizontal formats!  ...And to tell the client that their designers must Photoshop everything together. 


Yes, many years ago, I was doing the same type of work with my 16.7 MP 1Ds MkII.

Bu then I had to take three or four times more photos, with all the possible crops in camera.
The vertical full body shot, the horizontal half body shot with model's arms spread, the upper body or face close up, etc, etc.

It was taking much more time, the models worked much harder, since they had to repeat the poses, again and again, for each possible crop.
At some point they would get exausted, which could show on the photos, which is not good.

But these days are long gone, and the clients are now EXPECTING the files that could be cropped to death.

Trust me, it is MUCH easier to use the highest MP camera available for this type of work.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

Kuja said:


> Unfortunately, the answer is no.
> 
> On this photo shoot i took thousands (yes, thousands!) of photos, not knowing what their final use will be.
> I work with the camera that is handheld, I'm moving around the model and taking each shot from a different angle, so the stitching would not work because of the ever changing perspective.
> ...


Thanks, this example is much better to explain the problem. Your closest crop here is about 25-30% of the width of the final image, which you're slicing it thin at around 25% of the full field of view. A quarter of 45MP is a tad over 11MP left to work with, and you know if that works for your needs. I guess the catch is not knowing the final use of the image, which makes things more challenging. 

Just a question, isn't this what the sort of application for a high MP medium format cameras such as the 100MP Fujifilm GFX 100S?
In the article https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-100-review-is-live-and-this-is-what-we-think they state that "_the GFX 100 has a higher resolving power even than our test chart, which maxes out at 4,000 line widths/picture height! This is normally plenty for even the best digital cameras, but not this time. So we adapted our test process using precise distance and scale measurements to allow for this increased resolution. The results were clear and conclusive. With this new test method, the GFX 100 yielded a maximum resolution of 62 lw/ph, way beyond any smaller format model_."

They also confirm what you've stated:

_"So who needs 100 megapixels?_​_Not the average photographer, that’s for sure. But if your work is for high-end commercial clients who want to be able to use your images at the largest possible sizes, it could make a difference. In this market, clients often take a keen interest in the hardware uses, often stipulating minimum specifications. Even if you know a shot doesn’t need 100 million pixels, if the client knows it’s possible and decides they want it, that’s what you’ve got to do!"_

In that article, they also explain there's no such thing as a free lunch, as high MP bodies are less forgiving.

_"The GFX 100 is an unforgiving camera. It will magnify your resolution, but it will also magnify your errors. We first saw this with the Nikon D800, which brought ground-breaking 36-megapixel resolution in its day, and we still see it today with its even higher-resolution successors."_

Now, if a high MP medium format is unforgiving, with a tiny movement shifting the light across many more pixels due to the higher pixel density, wouldn't the issue be worse on a smaller full-frame sensor? Especially handheld? With a Canon 100MP FF, might we be trying to use a FF camera to do the job of a MF camera? The right tool for the job? 

To keep things in perspective, we need to consider that If Canon develops a 100MP camera, it will be FF and not MF simply because Canon makes FF cameras, not because FF is the optimum solution at that resolution!


----------



## Kuja (Jun 25, 2022)

Since I'm very careful with my technique and I work in controlled enviroment of my studio, I will have no problem with a 100+ MP FF camera.
I choose to stay with Canon because of the lenses, AF, and camera formfactor.



LogicExtremist said:


> Even if you know a shot doesn’t need 100 million pixels, if the client knows it’s possible and decides they want it, that’s what you’ve got to do!"


Exactly!


----------



## Kuja (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Now, if a high MP medium format is unforgiving, with a tiny movement shifting the light across many more pixels due to the higher pixel density, wouldn't the issue be worse on a smaller full-frame sensor? Especially handheld? With a Canon 100MP FF, might we be trying to use a FF camera to do the job of a MF camera? The right tool for the job?



Because I started doing more of the sport themed photoshoots in my studio, now I'm using studio flashes with a very short flash duration, mostly around 1/4000 sec, so no problems with the movements!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

Kuja said:


> Because I started doing more of the sport themed photoshoots in my studio, now I'm using studio flashes with a very short flash duration, mostly around 1/4000 sec, so no problems with the movements!


Thanks for explaining, studio with flash lighting is a very controlled environment that allows for very fast shutter speeds.


----------



## masterpix (Nov 16, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The only problem I see with this camera is that every little fault of the lens will be visible in the pictures.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks for explaining, studio with flash lighting is a very controlled environment that allows for very fast shutter speeds.



Quite the contrary. It allows for very pedestrian shutter durations (i.e. slow "shutter speeds") because the duration of the flash, not the duration of the shutter, is what determines exposure duration.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 23, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.
> 
> 400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?


In an argument for a HiRez sensor, you can't always frame exactly like you'd want, and being able to significantly crop the image allows you to fix or improve an image that still has excellent sharpness. If you shoot professionally, not having a keeper is a bigger deal than an amateur shooter.


----------



## TAF (Nov 27, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.
> 
> 400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?



When? When we exceed the resolution of the available lenses.

Until then, bring it on.

Of course, I would expect Canon to provide appropriate lenses to go with it. So hopefully, they won't ever run off the end, and will be able to keep taking our money.

I want what I'll call the R5LL, using their amazing 4 million ISO sensor technology. Now that would be useful in my applications.


----------



## shadow (Nov 28, 2022)

amorse said:


> Obviously weather sealing is somewhat difficult to quantify independently, until you realize you don't have enough of it.


Curious why with $3000-$5000. products that Canon doesn't use the IP standards? I know the below standards are somewhat vague, yeah they are not engineering definitive but some other ISO environmental standard if it exists. I own cheap 5mp low light security cameras that get blasted with pouring rain that are rated and no ingress failures yet, assuming they truly are tested to receive and IP64 or 65. 

Heard anecdotal stories of Canon cameras dropped into water and surviving but only specs seem to be OM systems, and something like the Olympus Tough.









IP rating Chart, Table | Dust & waterproof | Explanation PDF


The IP rating is typically defined by two letters or digits following the IP. The first letter after IP is defined as “solid particle protection.” This number




headphonicity.com


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2022)

When Black Friday prices were announced, I ordered a Fujifilm GFX 100S and the 35–70mm zoom that is the kit lens for another model. Including Payboo’s sales tax rebate, I saved over $1,400. (If I save any more money, I’ll be broke at that rate.) They came yesterday. There is a battery charging issue, so with the in-camera charging I can’t tell whether the battery is bad or the camera’s charging system is bad, or what. (I’m told to set up a video call to troubleshoot.) I plugged the camera into my iPad charger over night and got most of a charge, so I was able to go out this afternoon and take some photos.

I still don’t have any real use case for 102 MP. (I’m not buying a bigger printer nor a bigger house to have enough wall space to hang the pictures.) But the pictures are really impressive. It is too late for much fall color here, and too early for bleak wintery scenes, and I didn’t drive to a scenic location, mostly just shooting some maples that still have leaves. Pixel peeping at 400% on my Mac (really 2X) shows impressive resolution. I cropped down to 1% of a picture and sent the 100% crop to friends to let them know I got the camera. I think I’ll be really happy with the camera and pleasantly surprised with the kit lens, if we can get the battery issue solved. It will take me a while to get used to the menus and dials and figure out what settings I want.. I’ve used Canon cameras since 1970. When it is in stock, I plan to get the 20–35mm zoom. For purposes other than landscapes, I will mostly still use my 6D2. Maybe some day I will get the adaptor for my EF lenses.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2022)

As for concern about camera movement at that resolution, my limited experience suggests that the IBIS works really well. It was too windy to shoot the trees at slower shutter speeds and get sharp results, so I had just done some handheld shots this rainy morning looking through the glass in the back door. I could not detect any ill effect from camera movement. The door glass surely didn’t do sharpness any favors.


----------



## shadow (Nov 28, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I still don’t have any real use case for 102 MP.


I see complete buses wrapped up in some removable wrap like a moving billboard so there you go, that might be an application! Nice high end camera, and saving $1400. wow. Fujinon lenses look like pretty well perceived also. I think back buying a new Toyota Tercel for my wife for $5000. times have inflated. Too bad the sales volume isn't higher otherwise it would be $2500. I recall a Hasselblad seminar I went to years ago and the medium format was amazing, presentation too. But just a curiosity never bought or could justify spending that much. Enjoy your early Christmas present.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2022)

The B&H guy said to return the camera for a replacement. Both he and the email I got from Fuji said the hissing and gurgling noises were enough to decide that something is defective. (I’m reminded of Bill Murray’s line about a demon-possessed refrigerator, “Generally, you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.”) So I boxed the camera et. al. up and dropped it off this afternoon. I kept the lens of course. Here is the pixel-peeping crop of a shot from yesterday:




Note the detail in the brown leaf near the center toward the top. This crop is just over 1% of the total image.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2022)

GF 35–70mm lens at 70mm (55.0 equivalent), f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/680 sec. If interested, be sure to zoom in on the picture.


----------



## shadow (Nov 29, 2022)

stevelee said:


> The B&H guy said to return the camera for a replacement. Both he and the email I got from Fuji said the hissing and gurgling noises were enough to decide that something is defective. (I’m reminded of Bill Murray’s line about a demon-possessed refrigerator, “Generally, you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.”) So I boxed the camera et. al. up and dropped it off this afternoon. I kept the lens of course. Here is the pixel-peeping crop of a shot from yesterday:
> 
> View attachment 206536
> 
> ...


This is certainly finely detailed. So this is a 1 megapixel cropped shot? of the 102 of entire sensor, give or take a few I'd assume. Not sure if these sensors are actually larger than 100, say the overall size is really like 120 and the outer perimeter isn't used actually come think of it the lens projection circle fits inside the rectangular sensor, so even less pixels are used. Amazing to get this rgb density really it is. 

That sucks about sending it back that fast, at least it was gurgling and not the sound of a paper shredder.

"Multi-shot 400MP mode for static subjects" what is this feature? I just was looking at it on a spec sheet. Some sort of lateral shift of adjacent pixel clusters electronically to achieve more density? Like a frame offset up, down, left and right?


----------



## stevelee (Nov 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> This is certainly finely detailed. So this is a 1 megapixel cropped shot? of the 102 of entire sensor, give or take a few I'd assume.
> 
> "Multi-shot 400MP mode for static subjects" what is this feature? I just was looking at it on a spec sheet. Some sort of lateral shift of adjacent pixel clusters electronically to achieve more density? Like a frame offset up, down, left and right?


About 1.4 MP. If you zoom in, what you see are the actual pixels that Photoshop produced by the RAW interpretation and JPEG conversion, what many of us call 100% crop.

I'm fairly sure the 400 MP mode is done by shifting the internal stabilization mechanism. By "static subject" they aren't kidding. It is useless for landscapes on a still day. Trees move around. Maybe product photography in a studio using electronic shutter and a remote app to fire. I doubt I will ever try it out. Maybe if I ever get a macro lens for it or adapt my Canon, that might be fun to try.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I'm fairly sure the 400 MP mode is done by shifting the internal stabilization mechanism. By "static subject" they aren't kidding. It is useless for landscapes on a still day. Trees move around. Maybe product photography in a studio using electronic shutter and a remote app to fire. I doubt I will ever try it out. Maybe if I ever get a macro lens for it or adapt my Canon, that might be fun to try.


I can see utility for studio still subjects and perhaps architecture. I can say that pixel shift works great on fixed microscope specimens!


----------



## Kit. (Nov 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can say that pixel shift works great on fixed microscope specimens!


Just wondering what could be the microscope setup with 100S where it wouldn't be diffraction-limited even without pixel-shift.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Just wondering what could be the microscope setup with 100S where it wouldn't be diffraction-limited even without pixel-shift.


Sorry, didn't mean to imply I was using a 100 MP camera for that application. The first scope camera I used with pixel shift was a Zeiss AxioCam HRc, in the 2000-2001 time frame. It was a $13K camera with a 1.3 MP CCD sensor, and a 3x3 sub-pixel shift combined with a 2x2 full pixel shift (36 captures in total), yielded a 12 MP final image image with no color interpolation.

Generally, more sensor resolution is only needed at low magnification, e.g using objectives in the 1.25 - 5x range. When using a 100x objective, even a VGA resolution sensor is sufficient to capture the optical resolution of the system.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 29, 2022)

Speaking of diffraction, the few snaps I tried at f/32 didn’t seem to suffer noticeably. Now that I am without the camera for a while and there is not anything that photogenic around, I will likely scrutinize my casual test shots to see what information I might glean from them. I am unlikely to use f/32 in real life often at all.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 29, 2022)

It occurs to me that I could use the resolution to do a poor man’s shift. (After spending that much for a camera, one might then be a poor man.) Keep the camera level and shoot wide angle. Then you can still have plenty of resolution cropping down to what the shift lens might cover. Focus bracketing (which I haven’t tried with it) could fake some of the effects of tilt.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 1, 2022)

stevelee said:


> It occurs to me that I could use the resolution to do a poor man’s shift. (After spending that much for a camera, one might then be a poor man.) Keep the camera level and shoot wide angle. Then you can still have plenty of resolution cropping down to what the shift lens might cover. Focus bracketing (which I haven’t tried with it) could fake some of the effects of tilt.


Yep, that has promise. You would just need a wide-angle lens with really good edge resolution. The RF 14-35mm impressive in that regard up to about 30mm, but still probably not quite in there with Canon's newer tilt-shift lenses. It does autofocus, however, so for ephemeral stuff it would have a real advantage. It will be interesting to see what the RF tilt-shifts look like when they come out.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 1, 2022)

Cropping down might well eliminate the far corners. Also for that sort of picture, I'd be stopped down to f/8 or f/11, and the GF lenses are supposed to be good in the corners when stopped down, even my 35–70mm kit lens. My replacement camera is supposed to arrive tomorrow, so the first pretty day I try some of those things out. It will still take me a while to get up to speed on the controls and menus. Some of the things I take for granted on my Canon cameras are there on the Fuji, but off by default, such as touch on the screen. One thing I can try to duplicate is a shot of a small fountain in a nearby park that I took with the 24mm TS-E. I could do it better with the 20–35mm I hope to buy some day. B&H says it will be available December 28. If I get interesting results, I'll post here, since that would still be of interest for folks using high resolution Canons.


----------



## photographer (Dec 2, 2022)

stevelee said:


> When Black Friday prices were announced, I ordered a Fujifilm GFX 100S and the 35–70mm zoom that is the kit lens for another model. Including Payboo’s sales tax rebate, I saved over $1,400. (If I save any more money, I’ll be broke at that rate.) They came yesterday. There is a battery charging issue, so with the in-camera charging I can’t tell whether the battery is bad or the camera’s charging system is bad, or what. (I’m told to set up a video call to troubleshoot.) I plugged the camera into my iPad charger over night and got most of a charge, so I was able to go out this afternoon and take some photos.
> 
> I still don’t have any real use case for 102 MP. (I’m not buying a bigger printer nor a bigger house to have enough wall space to hang the pictures.) But the pictures are really impressive. It is too late for much fall color here, and too early for bleak wintery scenes, and I didn’t drive to a scenic location, mostly just shooting some maples that still have leaves. Pixel peeping at 400% on my Mac (really 2X) shows impressive resolution. I cropped down to 1% of a picture and sent the 100% crop to friends to let them know I got the camera. I think I’ll be really happy with the camera and pleasantly surprised with the kit lens, if we can get the battery issue solved. It will take me a while to get used to the menus and dials and figure out what settings I want.. I’ve used Canon cameras since 1970. When it is in stock, I plan to get the 20–35mm zoom. For purposes other than landscapes, I will mostly still use my 6D2. Maybe some day I will get the adaptor for my EF lenses.


It's already Christmas for someone!  I'm also thinking about medium format, but I'm put off by the focus speed and I'd probably miss amazing Canon RF 1.2 lenses. I also think that when canon introduces a high megapixel camera, the difference between MF and FF won't be so big, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 3, 2022)

B&H guy said the hissing and gurgling during charging attempts was enough for them to have me ship the camera back. The replacement is supposed to come tomorrow, since it is now at a FedEx facility 25 miles away. It will be rainy tomorrow, so I’ll have plenty of time for the battery to charge up. And then I’ll do some shooting on Sunday.

I had an f/1.2 lens back in film days. I don’t miss having one now. I almost never shoot wide open with the lenses I have. Focus speed is not an issue for me with landscapes, which is mostly what I’ll shoot with the Fuji. In general, I don’t have the autofocus issues that a lot folks here seem to have. I’m not chasing around flying birds, for one thing. My one afternoon shooting with the camera, I didn’t notice any focus issues. My computer had no problems with the large files in Photoshop. I liked the EV more than I thought I might. This is my first mirrorless ILC and first non-Canon ILC, so I expect to have to adjust. During the time without the camera, I’ve watched videos and read more of the manual. 

I think the larger pixels of MF would be an advantage at 100+ MP over FF.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 6, 2022)

I got the replacement camera Saturday and went to our town's festival and shot some pictures and a bit of video. The camera doesn't hiss and gurgle, so I guess it is OK. page of pictures The JPEGs are about 2% the area of the original Raw files. I did very little editing, mostly a bit of cropping, except for the panorama which is 3 shots stitched together. Everything was handheld. I'm impressed by the IBIS. Apparently the IBIS worked really well in the video also. I shot just 1080p, since I was pretty much using defaults until I learn how to use the camera. I didn't change the color or anything about the video, just edited clips. I went out yesterday and played around with focus bracketing. I didn't expect much, doing it handheld, but I did mostly learned how to do it. I'm really pleased with the camera and glad i bought it. So I have the 20–35mm lens on order now and hope to have it early next year.

This picture is one of the focus bracketing efforts. There are some anomalies from having handheld shots and ornaments moving in the wind. I cleaned up the resulting image a bit.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 6, 2022)

I will add a word about the EVF. It is not bad during more normal shooting, but with some of the Christmas lights there was an annoying amount of flicker. But I can put up with it for the quality of the results. So I do miss the OVF sometimes. This is my first mirrorless ILC. I paired the camera with the phone app when at home, and apparently the GPS readings did not update when I was downtown, so all the festival pictures show the coordinates of my home location. It doesn’t matter because I know where I was at the time. I’ll just have to be more careful with the GPS updating when I’m traveling.


----------



## cayenne (Dec 7, 2022)

photographer said:


> It's already Christmas for someone!  I'm also thinking about medium format, but I'm put off by the focus speed and I'd probably miss amazing Canon RF 1.2 lenses. I also think that when canon introduces a high megapixel camera, the difference between MF and FF won't be so big, but maybe I'm wrong.


Well, two different mindsets. You aren't at this time going for digital MF for speed. It just isn't going to happen.
But those larger sensors, bigger pixels, etc....whew...it really makes some awesome images and fuji glass is good stuff.

But different tools for different jobs.


----------

